View
76
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Michael Kirshenbaum's master thesis examines how charging for access is affecting the public mission ofparks and other outdoor recreation areas. Throughout American history most parks,forests and other protected natural areas have been government owned and open to fullaccess by people. In the United States, therefore, parks and other outdoor areas have longbeen treated as public, or so-called “merit goods.”Over the past decade, however, the public nature of parks and other public landsin the United States has been challenged. Governments have adopted free marketpractices for the management of public lands. The most prominent of the market-basedpractices is replacing park funding from general tax revenue with money raised throughaccess fees. Requiring the payment of a fee to access public lands is a potential indicatorof a societal shift in the treatment of public lands from merit goods to private goods.Concerns have also been raised by citizens, land managers, and politicians that requiringpayment of a fee for access may dissuade or exclude some people from entering parksbecause of an inability- or difficulty-to-pay.
Citation preview
MASTER’S THESIS
In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Western Washington University, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that copying of this thesis in whole or in part is allowable only for scholarly purposes. It is understood, however, that any copying or publication of this thesis for commercial purposes, or for financial gain, shall not be allowed without my written permission. Signature ________________________ Date ________________________
THE EFFECT OF ACCESS FEES ON VISITATION TO PUBLIC LANDS IN WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
A thesis presented to the faculty of Western Washington University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Master of Science
by Michael Kirshenbaum
February 2006
iv
ABSTRACT
This thesis examines how charging for access is affecting the public mission of
parks and other outdoor recreation areas. Throughout American history most parks,
forests and other protected natural areas have been government owned and open to full
access by people. In the United States, therefore, parks and other outdoor areas have long
been treated as public, or so-called “merit goods.”
Over the past decade, however, the public nature of parks and other public lands
in the United States has been challenged. Governments have adopted free market
practices for the management of public lands. The most prominent of the market-based
practices is replacing park funding from general tax revenue with money raised through
access fees. Requiring the payment of a fee to access public lands is a potential indicator
of a societal shift in the treatment of public lands from merit goods to private goods.
Concerns have also been raised by citizens, land managers, and politicians that requiring
payment of a fee for access may dissuade or exclude some people from entering parks
because of an inability- or difficulty-to-pay.
The issue of paying a fee for basic access to public lands is critical in determining
whether parks are still truly merit goods, as has been their historic role, or if a change is
occurring. The role of income in response to fees goes even further as a measure of
where parks fall on the merit goods / private goods spectrum: If fees dissuade the poor,
but not the wealthy, from using public lands, then this would be a strong indicator that the
democratic ideal behind parks and other public lands is being eroded. The interplay
between income and response to fees is central to the determination: Is access to public
lands something available equally to all citizens, regardless of income, like a library or
v
police protection, or are public lands becoming another consumer good that some people
can afford and others cannot.
This thesis used survey research methodology to examine the attitudes and
behaviors of residents of Whatcom County, Washington, towards public lands access
fees. A general population survey of 301 residents was conducted in May 2005 inquiring
about a wide-range of responses to public lands access fees. Multivariate statistical
techniques were employed to determine to what extent income plays a role in reaction to
public land access fees. The research was designed to test the following hypotheses: first,
that access fees dissuade people from using public lands; and, second, that lower income
groups are more affected by fees than upper income groups.
The research conducted here has disproved the null hypothesis that there is not a
relationship between fees, visitation patterns, and income. Fees dissuade about one-third
of the survey respondents from using public lands. Lower-income residents consistently
reported being more negatively affected by fees than the higher income groups. The
lower-income group responded, at statistically significant levels (p < .05) that they do not
use parks as often because of fees, that fees are economically hard to pay, that they
change their site selection because of fees, and that they are opposed to paying fees.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project would not have occurred without the assistance of a number of people. A special thanks to my thesis committee: Dr. Michael Medler, the chair, provided regular support, very useful insights and many brainstorming opportunities into the broader issues behind my thesis topic; Dr. Grace Wang provided key support and encouragement when I needed it most and helped to keep me focused; and Dr. Pamela Jull was generous in her time to help me through the nuts and bolts of not only survey methodology but also important statistical techniques. I cannot thank strongly enough the undergraduate students who helped me to make the thousands of telephone calls to complete the survey. Without their dedication, professionalism, sense-of-humor and stamina the telephone survey would have never happened. They are: Rose Agbalog, Heather Boad, Sandra Brozusky, Stephanie Dressel, Joseph Gallagher, David Hutchinson, Vincent Jansen, Monica Libbey, Teresa Mathiesen, Sara Pittenger, Johanna Smith, and Chad Weldy. Thank you to Richard Frye, WWU computer pro, who provided much assistance with compiling the data and using the survey software. Additionally, WWU’s Office of Survey Research was generous in their willingness to loan me equipment to conduct the survey.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ix
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
Key Definitions ...........................................................................................................4
II. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................6
Merit Goods ................................................................................................................6
Public Lands as Merit Goods.......................................................................................8
Transforming Public Lands To Private Goods ...........................................................12
Public Land Access Fees ...........................................................................................15
Research Question.....................................................................................................18
Previous Fee-Related Research..................................................................................20
Utility of Research.....................................................................................................23
III. METHODS ............................................................................................................26
Study Area ................................................................................................................26
Methodology .............................................................................................................28
Project Design: Key Information and Variables ........................................................30
Project Design: Survey type.......................................................................................32
Project Design: Sample method .................................................................................33
Project Design: Survey Instrument Construction........................................................35
Project Design: Conducting the survey ......................................................................37
Statistical Analysis ....................................................................................................38
IV. RESULTS..............................................................................................................42
Summary of Key Findings .........................................................................................42
Response Rate ...........................................................................................................43
Demographics ...........................................................................................................44
Results for General Outdoor Usage Questions ...........................................................46
viii
Results for Behavioral Fee Questions ........................................................................48
Results for Attitudinal Fee Questions.........................................................................54
Additional Analysis With Extended Independent Variable Model..............................59
Qualitative Results ....................................................................................................61
Summary of Results ..................................................................................................62
V. DISCUSSION .........................................................................................................64
Discussion of Results.................................................................................................64
Fees and the Privatization of Public Lands.................................................................66
Limitations of Research.............................................................................................70
Conclusions...............................................................................................................71
VI. LITERATURE CITED..........................................................................................73
VII. APPENDIX A.......................................................................................................77
Complete survey with responses to each question ......................................................77
VIII. APPENDIX B......................................................................................................84
Regression tables utilizing expanded demographic model for select questions ...........84
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Major public land agencies in the United States 10 Table 2 Public land access fees in Whatcom County 1998 – present 16 Table 3 Calling results 43 Table 4 Household income in Whatcom County 45 Table 5 Age results 45 Table 6 Fees and visitation patterns 50 Table 7 Avoidance of paying a fee in the past year 51 Table 8 Altered site selection 53 Table 9 Walk-in to avoid fees 54 Table 10 Economic difficulty of paying fees 55 Table 11 Opposition to fees 57
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Federal lands in Washington and Oregon 11 Figure 2 Study area – Whatcom County, Washington 27 Figure 3 Response rate 43 Figure 4 Public land usage 47 Figure 5 Outdoor activities in the past year 47 Figure 6 How do fees affect how often you go to those places 49 Figure 7 Avoidance of paying a fee in the past year 51 Figure 8 Altered site selection 52 Figure 9 Economic difficulty of paying fees 55 Figure 10 Opposition to fees 56 Figure 11 Parks treated like libraries or movie theaters? 58 Figure 12 Source of funding 59
I. INTRODUCTION Throughout American history most parks, forests and other protected natural
areas have been owned by the government and open to full access by people. This public
status of parks did not occur by accident, however, and is contrary to the history of parks
in many other countries. The origins of the American treatment of parks as public goods
can be traced to early American architects of both urban and remote wilderness parks,
such as Fredrick Law Olmsted, who believed that parks play a key role in promoting the
democratic ideals upon which the United States was founded. Olmsted believed that the
benefits of natural settings should be made available to the entire public, regardless of
economic class. This concept, among other factors, resulted in government ownership of
virtually all large, protected natural spaces. The creation of vast public land holdings was
in contrast to European societies, where natural landscapes were usually privately owned
and reserved for the elite.
In the United States, therefore, parks and other outdoor areas have long been
treated as public, or so-called “merit goods.” In capitalist societies like the United States,
resources are typically distributed by market forces. Merit goods, however, are resources
considered to be so important that the government decides to directly provide them or to
subsidize their provision. This is often the case when the laissez-faire market cannot
distribute the resources in an effective, equitable, or ethical manner.
Prominent examples of such merit goods include public schools, fire-fighting
services, and public libraries. The creation and provision of these services is not given to
the private sector, which can then charge whatever price the market would bear. Rather,
it is the public sector that manages these essential services so that they are made available
2
to the entire citizenry, regardless of ability to pay. These services have historically been
paid for through broad and progressive taxation.
Over the past decade, however, the public nature of parks and other public lands
in the United States has been challenged. Two related forces – government budget
deficits and free-market ideology – have created an environment that has begun to erode
the status of public lands as merit goods. In recent years, governments at various levels
have adopted free market practices for the management of public lands. These market-
based practices include: using revenue from access fees rather than general tax revenue to
pay for public-land operations; seeking corporate sponsorship for projects; privatizing
management services; and even proposing the outright sale of public lands to the private
sector. These market-based practices represent a shift in the management philosophy of
public lands that has the potential to alter the historic democratic nature of parks.
The most prevalent market-based effort implemented thus far throughout the
nation’s public land system has been to charge for access to public lands, usually in the
form of entrance fees or parking fees. Whereas only national parks charged for access
during most of the past 100 years, the past decade has witnessed many other public land
units beginning to charge fees. Requiring the payment of a fee to access public lands is a
potential indicator of a societal shift in the treatment of public lands from merit goods to
private goods. Concerns have been raised by citizens, land-managers, and politicians that
requiring payment of a fee for access may dissuade or exclude some people from entering
parks because of an inability- or difficulty-to-pay.
This thesis will examine the impact of public land access fees on residents of
Whatcom County, Washington, to determine whether such fees are excluding or
3
dissuading county residents from using public lands based on their level of income.
More specifically, the research questions this thesis will focus on are:
• Whether access fees affect the nature and frequency of public land visitation.
• Whether the relationship between fees and visitation is affected by visitor
income level.
• Whether fees are consistent with the merit goods status of public land.
The primary hypothesis this research tested is twofold: First, that access fees dissuade
people from using public lands; and, second, that lower income groups are more affected
by fees than upper income groups. This hypothesis was tested using a general population
survey of Whatcom Country residents that collected data on people’s behaviors and
attitudes towards public land access fees.
In sum, this thesis seeks to examine how charging for access is affecting the
public mission of parks and other outdoor recreation areas. The issue of paying a fee for
basic access is critical in determining whether parks are still truly merit goods, as has
been their historic role, or if a change is occurring. The role of income in response to
fees goes even further as a measure of where parks fall on the merit goods / private goods
spectrum: If fees dissuade the poor, but not the wealthy, from using public lands, then
this would be a strong indicator that the democratic ideal behind parks and other public
lands is being eroded. The interplay between income and response to fees is central to
the determination: Is access to public lands something available equally to all citizens,
regardless of income, like a library or police protection, or are public lands becoming
another consumer good that some people can afford and others cannot?
4
Key Definitions
There are several words and phrases that should be clearly defined from the
outset:
• Public lands and parks: Public lands refer to relatively undeveloped outdoor
natural areas managed by government agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service,
Washington State Parks, and Whatcom County Parks. There are many terms used
to describe such natural areas, including: park, forest, preserve, river, lake and
other outdoor-recreation areas. What these public lands have in common –
whether managed at the local, state or federal levels – is that they constitute
publicly owned and protected landscapes that are open to visitation by people. At
times the word “parks” is used synonymously with “public lands” in order to
provide some variation.
• Access Fees: This refers to the relatively new phenomenon of charging the public
for basic access to public lands, usually in the form of purchasing a parking pass
or paying at an entrance station. The fees in question range from $5 - $11 per day
with more expensive annual or seasonal passes also available. There are a few
caveats to my use of the term “access fees.” First, not all fees are technically for
access; rather they are for parking and you can still enter the public land for free
as long as you don’t park there. Given the reality that an automobile is required
to visit many public lands in Whatcom County, however, a fee on parking is a
de facto access fee. The second caveat is that not all public lands that charge
access fees do so at all of their entry points. Some do, such as national parks and
Washington state parks; but the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest has many
5
trailheads with free access, although virtually all of their most popular trailheads
require paying a fee.
• Visitation: People access public lands in a number of ways, including via parking
lots, trails, horseback paths, boat launches or just by parking off the side of the
road and walking into the woods. Visitation may vary between multi-night
backpacking trips at North Cascades National Park to a short walk at Larrabee
State Park. Therefore visitation refers to any type of use of public lands for any
amount of time.
6
II. BACKGROUND
This section will situate the research question and hypothesis in the broader
context of the history of public lands and their treatment as merit goods in the United
States. First, I will introduce merit-good theory and provide examples of how it has been
applied in the United States. Second, I will discuss the history of public lands and the
reasons for their designation as merit goods. Third, I will examine the relatively recent
efforts to change the nature of parks and other outdoor areas from merit goods to private
goods through the use of market-based management policies. Fourth, I will examine the
emergence of public land access fees including a review of previous research in this area.
Finally, I will discuss the outstanding research questions and the utility of this research,
including the contribution I hope this thesis will make to the literature.
Merit Goods
The economy of the United States is based on a capitalist system that allows
market forces to determine the distribution of most goods and services. There are many
important exceptions, however, to market-based distributions. A prominent example is
that throughout the history of the United States, parks and other such outdoor landscapes
have been owned by the government, which in turn has made these lands open to the
public (Nash 2001). There are large publicly-accessible outdoor areas owned by the
private sector, such as golf courses or other sports complexes, but there are vastly less
privately held hiking trails, neighborhood parks, or boat launches. As this section will
discuss, the public-nature of outdoor recreation has been intentional.
7
The government’s provision of public land benefits demonstrates that they are
treated as “merit goods.” Merit-goods theory holds that there are essential resources so
important that the government decides to distort consumer sovereignty and market forces
by directly providing them or subsidizing their provision. This is often the case when the
laissez-faire market cannot distribute socially important resources in an effective,
equitable, or ethical manner. Prominent examples of such merit goods include: public
education, fire fighting services, police services, and public libraries. The creation and
provision of these services is not given to the private sector which could charge any price
even if it would be more than some people could pay. Rather, it is the public sector that
is in charge of these essential services and makes them available to the entire citizenry,
usually paid for through broad and progressive taxation (Musgrave 1959; Cockrell and
Wellman 1985; Schultz, McAvoy et al. 1988).
Decisions concerning what should be considered merit goods and what should be
left to the private sector are often contested. In the current era, the role and size of
government is a major political issue that frequently divides liberal and conservative
ideological camps. With the ascendancy of conservatism in the United States over the
past twenty-five years, there have been widespread and concerted efforts to shift some
traditional government roles to the private sector and for the government to adopt more
business-like practices (More 2002). As this paper will discuss, the public status of parks
and other public outdoor areas has been a contested part of the broader societal debate
over merit goods versus private goods.
8
Public Lands as Merit Goods
The merit-goods status of parks and other outdoor recreation areas in the United
States may seem immutable, but the country could have developed differently. How did
parks and other outdoor recreation areas in the U.S. become merit goods rather than
private goods? The consensus in the literature is that this development began with
Frederick Law Olmsted (1822 – 1903), perhaps the most influential designer and
architect of parks in the history of the United States. Olmsted was responsible not only
for designing urban parks such as New York City’s Central Park and San Francisco’s
Golden Gate Park, but also for developing management plans for wilderness parks, such
as Yosemite National Park.
Olmsted believed that parks should be designed and managed in accordance with
American principles of democracy. He was adamantly against the attitudes of the
European aristocracy, which viewed parks as the manicured playground of the elite.
Olmsted believed it was part of the democratic and non-aristocratic character of the
United States to provide an environment that would allow for a different kind of
relationship between citizens and their parks (Cranz 1982; Cockrell and Wellman 1985;
Duncan 1991; More 1999; Nash 2001).
Olmsted held that democracy would be promoted in parks by designing them to
immerse people in natural settings that encouraged a spontaneous and individual, rather
than a structured, response. He theorized that this type of mental process would allow a
level of contemplation that is critical to democratic governance. Olmsted believed that
the ability of park visitors to freely wander about, making their own decisions about how
to experience the natural setting, allowed for a cognitive freedom missing in other aspects
9
of life. Additionally, Olmsted designed parks to promote the mixing of social classes,
another essential characteristic of American democracy in his opinion (Cockrell and
Wellman 1985; Dustin 1986).
Olmsted’s philosophy was consistent with the social-reform movement of the late
19th and early 20th centuries (Cranz 1982; Duncan 1991). During this time, proponents of
urban parks targeted low-income neighborhoods for the establishment of new parks.
Similar to Olmsted’s vision of parks nurturing democracy, the social-reform movement
considered parks to be an essential social good that would help improve the lives of
lower-class urban residents.
There has been considerable research in recent years that has added to or
confirmed Olmsted’s ideas regarding the benefits of visiting public lands (Hendee,
Stankey et al. 1990; Trainor and Norgaard 1999). These benefits include: providing
opportunities for outdoor recreation such as hiking, picnicking, hunting, and other similar
activities; providing access to some degree of solitude in an increasingly urbanized
world; and providing opportunities for the exploration of psychological, spiritual and
cultural values uniquely found in undisturbed natural landscapes (Harmon and Putney
2003).
As a result of the philosophy espoused by Olmsted and many other prominent
advocates of the social benefits of public lands, government has long been in the business
of controlling most parks and other protected natural areas (Cockrell and Wellman 1985).
With the exception of a few private non-profit entities such as the Nature Conservancy,
an organization that buys and protects vulnerable land, the government has a near
monopoly on managing large natural landscapes (Table 1). This government intervention
10
has therefore clearly removed such lands
from the realm of the private market to treat
them as merit goods (Cockrell and Wellman
1985; Dustin 1986; Schultz, McAvoy et al.
1988).
The centrality of the merit-goods
nature of public lands is made obvious in
the mission statements and managing
statutes of public land agencies. The
mission statement for Washington State Parks (WSP 2005), for example, states:
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission acquires, operates, enhances and protects a diverse system of recreational, cultural, historical and natural sites. The Commission fosters outdoor recreation and education statewide to provide enjoyment and enrichment for all, and a valued legacy to future generations. . . When Yellowstone was set aside in 1872 as the world's first national park, it marked the start of a new attitude toward the American outdoors. Citizens gradually came to see value in saving tracts of open space for everyone to enjoy. . .(emphasis added)
Similarly, the United States Congress reaffirmed the merit-goods nature of national parks
in one of the key modern management documents for the National Park Service, the 1978
Redwoods Act (92 Stat. 163 (U.S.Congress 1978)):
Congress further reaffirms, declares, and directs the promotion and regulation of the various areas of the National Park System . . . shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by the first section of the Act of August 25, 1916, to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of these areas shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System. . . . (emphasis added) Olmsted’s vision of public stewardship and open access to natural landscapes
largely came true: Government at the state and federal levels own approximately 40
Table 1 Major public land agencies in the United States
Federal Government
Department of Interior - National Park Service - Bureau of Land Management - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Agency Department of Agriculture - U.S. Forest Service Department of Defense - Army Corps of Engineers
State Government (Washington)
Washington State Parks Department of Natural Resources
Local Government (Whatcom County)
Whatcom County Parks Bellingham City Parks, etc.
11
percent of the land mass of the United States. In Washington State (Figure 1) about 42
percent of the land is owned by the state and federal governments (NWI 1995).
Figure 1 - Federal Lands in WA and OR (USFS 1996)
12
Additionally, the public has embraced visiting outdoor areas with a fervor that
surely would have made Olmsted happy: As of 2000, Washington State Parks had an
annual attendance of 58 million -- representing a 40 percent increase from a decade
earlier (WSP 2005). Nationally, outdoor activities are also very popular. A 2002
national survey found that nearly 60 percent of the public reported participating in the
activity of “viewing natural scenery” and 57 percent reported “visiting a nature center
trail or zoo (USDA 2000).”
Transforming Public Lands To Private Goods
The merit-goods status of parks and other public lands is currently under broad
assault by prominent lawmakers, agency officials, and conservative think tanks. The
implementation of access fees at a wide range of parks and other outdoor areas is one
example of the market-based management practices being adopted by public land
agencies, but there are many others, as this section will discuss.
The merit goods status of parks and other outdoor areas has met with opposition
since the beginning of the modern park movement around the turn of the 20th century
(Cranz 1982). Olmsted and other early park pioneers believed that the social importance
of parks and outdoor areas necessitated their accessibility to the entire public. Therefore,
private ownership, with its potential commercial intrusions or restrictions on access, was
not considered acceptable. As far back as 1900, park advocates found it necessary to
actively protect the public nature of parks by calling for a prohibition on any form of
advertising or commercial activity in parks (Cranz 1982). It wasn’t until the 1990s that
access fees became widespread and only after federal lawmakers had repeatedly rebuffed
13
efforts throughout the 20th century to charge for access (White 1992; Wellman and Probst
2004).
The effort to introduce market-based management practices gained steam during
the early 1980s. The Reagan administration tried to halt the growth of the nation’s
public-land inventory by eliminating funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
the federal government’s primary tool for increasing the nation’s public-land acreage
(Shute 1995). Free-market think tanks simultaneously began calling for selling off some
public lands and encouraging commercial activities in others (Beckwith 1981).
Currently, there is a broad ideological push to adopt policies that would begin to
treat parks and other public lands as private goods. The private-goods argument is
primarily based in a free market ideology that broadly favors privatizing most
government services. This ideology would be applied to public lands via a spectrum of
methods, including: access fees; selling advertising or sponsorship space; privatizing
service provision; and possibly the outright sale of public lands to private entities
(Schultz, McAvoy et al. 1988; Johnson 1991; Hanson 2005; McClure 2005). Advocates
of this market-based approach contend that government should adopt a business model in
managing public lands that requires each unit to generate revenue and become “self
sufficient” – i.e. cut costs and raise revenue as much as possible on-site rather than rely
upon general tax revenue (More 2002).
A prominent example of adopting market-based policies to public lands is Mt.
Saint Helens National Volcanic Monument, which is operated by the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS). “Mount St. Helens open to bids,” a Portland newspaper declared (Milstein
2005) in describing a USFS plan to raise revenue through privately run helicopter tours,
14
cabin construction and mobile snack carts at scenic view points. The plan also sought
bids from private companies to take over operations of the monument’s visitor centers.
Another recent example is the Department of Interior requiring maintenance divisions at
several national parks to audit their jobs for information that would be used to facilitate
outsourcing (NPCA 2004).
Finally, the U.S. House of Representatives recently approved legislation
sponsored by the chair of the Resources Committee, Richard Pombo (R-CA), a vocal
opponent of public lands, that could open more than 350 million acres of public land to
mining and real estate speculation by private interests (McClure 2005). This legislation
did not pass the Senate, however, and did not become law.
In recent years, the National Park Service (NPS) has turned to private sources of
money, usually through non-profit “friends of” groups, to raise new revenue. The
Yosemite Fund, a non-profit organization that supports Yosemite National Park, has
given over $23 million to the park since 1988. The Yosemite Fund has received
donations from corporations such as Bank of American, Chevron and Wells Fargo. A
new NPS policy also encourages parks to approach corporations and other potential
“partners” to donate money for specific projects, which would then be recognized by
plaques, commemorative bricks or other signage indicating the benefactors, including
their corporate logos (Doyle 2005).
In Washington State, free market think tanks have also promoted the idea of
privatizing public lands and implementing user fees and market-based management
practices. The Washington Institute Foundation, for example, has encouraged
contracting out the entire operations of state parks to private businesses (Herrington
15
2000). The Washington Policy Center has extensive policy recommendations for
changing Washington State Parks: “State Parks’ budget problems are real, but solvable,”
a report from the center states. “A comprehensive solution requires the state to embrace
the benefits of market-based user fees and privatization (Hanson 2005).”
There has also been support for market-based practices from public land officials.
Some officials have stated that they support market-based alternative revenue streams
and cost cutting methods in order to better serve the public (Bach 2003). One factor
possibly contributing to this acceptance is that public land officials have, for years, been
confronted by insufficient appropriated tax dollars. Indeed, research shows that since the
1980s budgets for public-land agencies have not kept pace with an increased maintenance
backlog or growing public demand (Wellman and Probst 2004). As of 2003, for
example, Washington State Parks had a maintenance backlog of $34 million (WSP 2005).
Public land officials, therefore, have a strong need to identify methods to increase their
budgets. As will be discussed later, however, it appears that access fees often do not
always supplement public land budgets but rather replace previously appropriated dollars.
Public Land Access Fees
Public land access fees have been the most widely implemented of the market-
based management changes. Until the mid 1990s, most public lands in the United States,
with the exception of national parks, did not charge a fee for access, and the federal
government expressly forbid charging entry fees at federal lands except for national parks
(White 1992; Turner 2002; Williams and Black 2002). This began to change in 1996
when the U.S. Congress passed the Recreation Fee Demonstration Act (P.L.-104-134
1996), known as “Fee Demo,” which allowed most federal land-management agencies –
16
Table 2 Public Land Access Fees in Whatcom County 1998 - present
Pre 1998 1998-2002
daily / annual 2002-present daily / annual
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest
Free $5 / $30 $5 / $30
North Cascades National Park
Free $5 / $30 $5 / $30*
WA Dept. Fish & Wildlife Free $ 11 / na $11 / na
Washington State Parks Free Free $5 / $50
City Parks Free Free Free
County Parks Free Free Free
Note on table: For some areas that charge fees (NPS and USFS), fees are not charged at all access points. * North Cascades NP changed policy at the end of 2005 and is no longer charging a parking fee at trailheads. New fees are being considered, however, to replace the revenue from the parking fees.
including the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land
Management – to charge access fees and keep most of the revenue on-site rather than
send it back to Washington, D.C. Congress’ goal for the program was:
To demonstrate the feasibility of user-generated cost recovery for the operation and maintenance of recreation areas or sites and habitat enhancement projects on federal land (P.L.-104-134 1996).
At the same time, Congress instructed agencies to pursue revenue generation
through concession operations, private investment, volunteers and partnerships (Williams
and Black 2002). The federal government implemented the Fee Demo program
throughout federal lands. In 2001, for example, 80 different Forest Service units charged
access fees generating more than $35 million (GAO 2003). In Washington State, Fee
Demo resulted in access fees being charged at numerous trailheads on federal lands, such
as at the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, that had previously been free (Table 2).
17
In 2004, Congress passed a ten-year extension of the fee program, renaming it the
Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA). This law was enacted despite the
opposition of a wide range of interests, from environmentalists to libertarian Republican
lawmakers from Western states (Craig 2005). The new law continues the basic approach
of Fee Demo by allowing access fees to be charged at many federal public lands. A
major change in this new law, however, is that failure to pay an access fee is now a
criminal offense: first offenses are capped at a $100 fine, but a criminal record is created
and subsequent offenses are subject to penalties up to $100,000 and/or 1 year in jail
(P.L.-108-447 2005).
The emergence of access fees has not been limited to federal lands, as many state
park systems also now charge entry fees. In Washington State, the State Parks and
Recreation Commission voted in 2002 to charge for access to most state parks, all of
which had previously been entirely free of charge except for value-added services like
developed campgrounds (Table 2). The access fees at Washington State Parks are $5 per
day, per vehicle or $50 per year, and those rates will rise to $7 per day and $70 per year
in 2008 (WSP 2005).
It is not common for city and county parks to charge access fees, perhaps due to
easy accessibility to these areas by foot, bike, and bus, thus making the use of parking
fees impractical. But advocates of adopting market-based strategies for public lands have
suggested local parks should also charge entry fees. A former director of parks in
Indianapolis, Leon Younger, suggested that an economic value should be placed on
outdoor recreation experiences at city parks: “There is nothing wrong with placing a
value on a recreation experience (TPL 1998).”
18
In sum, this section has examined the theory of merit goods and how the United
States came to treat outdoor areas as public, rather than private, resources. It was a
decision rooted in a democratic ideal about access to nature, where citizens of all class
backgrounds would stand to benefit from accessing parks and other outdoor areas. The
public nature of parks and outdoor areas has been challenged in recent years, however, by
both free-market ideology and budget difficulties. The advent and wide implementation
of fees, along with other market-based approaches to generating revenue and cutting
costs, represents a fundamental shift in the management of public lands. Access fees are
the most prominent and widespread of the market-based changes altering the
management of public lands. This change in policy has numerous implications and many
potential research questions in need of studying, as the next section will explore.
Research Question
The adoption of public land access fees has generated considerable public,
governmental, media, and academic interest. Protests have been held throughout the
country in opposition to fees; supporters of fees have formed lobbying groups to promote
access fees and other market-based policies (Herrington 2000; Hanson 2005); newspaper
and magazine archives are filled with stories regarding the implementation and impact of
access fees (Connelly 2001; Turner 2002; Turner 2003; Wureful 2003; Mottram 2004;
Kenworthy 2005; Milstein 2005); the government has released numerous reports and
policy documents regarding fees (Dustin and Knopf 1988; GAO 1998; GAO 2003); and,
finally, many researchers have focused on the fee issue (Putkammer 2001; Williams and
Black 2002). Yet, for all of the attention and research already invested in access fees,
there are considerable gaps in our understanding of the impacts of this new policy.
19
A key aspect of fees that have received some, but limited, attention is the research
topic for this thesis: whether fees affect visitation and whether income-level plays a role
in how people respond to fees. Examining the potential impact of fees on lower income
populations has been recognized as an important topic in need of research by government
agencies and others (GAO 1998; Williams and Black 2002; GAO 2003; Mottram 2004).
A 2002 U.S. Forest Service report, for example, clearly stated the need for research to
answer the following questions about fees:
• Whether the Fee Demonstration Program limits access based on economic ability to pay and causes an inequitable effect on those who have less income.
• Whether the population most affected by the program is defined by low-income or
by low disposable or discretionary income (Williams and Black 2002)
Despite these calls for research on the impact of fees on lower-income populations,
relatively little research has been conducted on this question, and that which has been
conducted has had methodological limitations. Additionally, I have been unable to find
any research conducted on this question in Washington State or Whatcom County.
Before proceeding, it is important to clearly answer the following question: Why
is it important to study whether fees affect how people use public lands and who uses
them? The answer is based on the historic treatment of public lands as merit goods.
There are numerous goods in society that are unaffordable to many people and wealth
buys varying levels of access to any number of private environments. Historically,
however, public lands have been treated as merit goods and basing access on an ability-
to-pay is a relatively new development. If income groups respond unequally to public
land access fees, as this thesis seeks to discover, that would call into question whether
20
parks are serving their historic public purpose of being available to all people for their
use and enjoyment. As More and Stevens persuasively argue:
If low-income people are, in fact, excluded from public parks and recreation areas, then serious policy questions are raised about the very purpose of public recreation. . . . [W]hen agencies begin to act like entrepreneurs seeking self-funding through fees, and low-income people are excluded, the public purpose – the very reason for public ownership – is defeated (More and Stevens 2000).
The potential exclusionary effect of access fees on visitation, therefore, is a powerful
indicator of whether public lands are still treated as merit goods. As previously stated,
the democratic nature of public lands – the provision of their benefits to all people – is a
tenet written into the mission statements and managing legislation of many public land
agencies.
Regardless of whether or not there is an association between income and response
to access fees, there remains the ultimate philosophical issue of the basic compatibility
between access fees and public lands. Even if lower-income people say they are willing
to pay fees at the same rate as higher-income people, fees may not be consistent with the
mission and history of public lands. At the very least, it clear that restricting access to
those who can afford to pay represents a profound change in policy that is worthy of
study.
Previous Fee-Related Research
Much of the fee-related research conducted thus far has examined more
managerial aspects of fees, such as price structure, revenue generation, preferred fee-
revenue expenditures, and other implementation issues (Putkammer 2001; Williams and
Black 2002). Additional research has been conducted looking at general attitudes
21
towards fees as a method of revenue generation (Williams, Vogt et al. 1999), and the
effect of fees on wilderness issues (Trainor and Norgaard 1999).
Regarding the impact of fees on visitation, there are several studies that have
looked at this issue but did not consider income effects. These studies found that access
fees clearly change how some, but not all, people use public lands by decreasing the
frequency of visitation or by altering site selection to choose free sites. For example, one
study (Schneider and Budruk 1999)1 interviewed people at two very similar beach
locations, one in a National Forest that charged access fees and one at a free site. This
research found that approximately one-third of the respondents said they had changed
their visitation patterns as a result of fees. Of that one-third, 62 percent reported visiting
the fee-charging National Forest site less often. Similarly, a study at the Desolation
Wilderness in California showed that an access fee as low as $3 significantly affected use
patterns (Williams, Vogt et al. 1999)2. A study in Chicago (Schroeder and Louviere
1999)3 also found that fees had a significant impact on the site choice of users with
almost 40 percent saying they avoided sites that charge fees.
Research examining the effect of fees on the visitation patterns of different
income groups is very limited. There are a few studies, but the question has not been
explored by many researchers. In summary, these studies have generally found that
lower-income respondents are more negatively impacted by fees than upper-income
respondents. As will be discussed in the next section, Utility of Research, despite these
studies there are gaps in the literature that this thesis seeks to address.
1 Schneider 1999 details: Self-administered survey. Number of responses = 346 (response rate unknown). 2 Williams 1999 details: Structural equation model. Mail survey sent to recreation permit holders. Number of responses = 320 (71% response rate). 3 Schroeder 1999 details: Stated choice model. General population random telephone directory telephone survey. Number of responses = 302 (58% response rate).
22
The most important of the fee / income studies is that by More and Stevens
(2000). Using a general-population mail survey, this study found that lower-income
residents of Vermont and New Hampshire were more likely than higher-income residents
to be deterred by fees from using public lands. This study is particularly important
because it is one of the few to use a general population survey and because it asked about
fees charged at a range of public lands rather than just one park.4
Another important study was conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers (Reiling
and McCarville 1994) using on-site surveys at a number of its facilities nationwide to
determine the effect of day-use access fees. This study found that lower-income visitors
would use the Army Corps public lands less regularly if there were access fees.5
Finally, a large general-population survey conducted by the U.S. Forest Service in
its Pacific Northwest Region found that lower-income respondents were negatively
affected by access fees. Lower-income groups in this survey were more likely than the
other income groups to say they could not afford to pay access fees and that fees would
make it so that “only the rich could afford to go to national forests (Burns, Graefe et al.
2002).6”
There are additional studies and theories that examine the usage of public lands
by different socioeconomic groups. Opportunity theory, for example, posits that travel
4 More 2000 details: Disproportionate stratified general population mail survey with oversampling in lower-income geographic areas. Number of responses = 296 (34% response rate.) Analysis found that $5 access fee would affect about 49% of lower-income vs. 33% of high income. 5 Reiling 1994 details: Random sample of days users sent a mail survey. Number of responses =1405 (56% response rate). 40% of all groups state they would not visit for day use if a fee was charged. More lower income respondents than upper income respondents reported not wanting to pay a fee at statistically significant level (p<0.10). 6 Burns 2002 details: General population random-digit telephone survey in Washington and Oregon. Number of responses = 2,005 (response rate n/a). One-third with income $30,000 or less. 17% either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement “I can’t afford to pay a fee to recreate on National Forests.” This study is somewhat limited by no statistical analysis and it is unclear whether the results are statistically significant.
23
costs and the lack of nearby public-land areas can be a major factor affecting visitation
for lower-income people (Lindsay and Ogle 1972; Lieber, Fesenmaier et al. 1989).
Ethnicity theory can be used to explain outdoor recreation preferences based on varying
cultural value systems, norms and leisure socialization patterns (Floyd 1999; Lee, Scott et
al. 2001). These theories demonstrate that democratic access to parks can be challenged
by many factors in addition to access fees. They do not address, however, the unique
impact of fees on already established behaviors.
The question remains, therefore, whether income-level is a factor in how people
react to access fees. This question is based on classic economic theory which holds that:
raising the price of a good or service reduces the quantity of that good or service to be
purchased; those with the least money drop out of the market first; and all taxes levied
directly on consumption are regressive, causing people to pay the same regardless of
income level (More 2002).
Utility of Research
This project seeks to contribute to the literature by examining the relationship
between public land access fees, visitation patterns, and income. As the previous review
of the literature shows, there has already been research conducted on this issue, but
important gaps remain. More specifically, the new research conducted in this thesis is
necessary in three ways:
First, there is no research publicly available on this topic regarding Washington
State or Whatcom County. Although the Burns (2002) study did cover the entire Pacific
Northwest region of the U.S. Forest Service, which includes Washington State and
Whatcom County, this survey only examined policies regarding U.S. Forest Service land
24
and did not ask very detailed question relating to how income groups differ in their
response to access fees. Given the prominence and popularity of public lands in
Whatcom County, it seems especially important to examine the issue of access fees at
this location. Additionally, public land fees remain a controversial policy in Washington
State and one that may be in flux. Very recently, the majority leader of the Washington
State House of Representatives, Lynn Kessler (D), announced that she will introduce
legislation in the winter of 2006 to eliminate access fees at Washington State Parks
(Freiderich 2005).
Second, with the exception of the More and Stevens (2000) and Burns (2002),
virtually all of the research regarding the impact of fees do not use general-population
surveys but rather on-site interviews. This involves handing out surveys to be completed
– or later mailed in – at trailheads, boat launches and campground. The key weakness in
this approach is that the sample pool is self-selected and is not a genuine socio-economic
cross-section of the population – the respondents are people who had already made the
choice to go to public lands. Therefore, an on-site survey might have significantly
different results from a general population survey that contacts people who have already
been deterred from visiting public lands. Indeed, a U.S. Forest Service report found that
support for fees was almost twice as high when surveys were conducted solely at
recreation sites where fees were charged compared to general population surveys or
surveys conducted at non-fee sites (Williams and Black 2002).
Finally, another area in which the existing literature is somewhat thin is that most
surveys, again with More and Stevens (2000) excepted, inquire about fees at specific
parks or public-land types, rather than looking at fees being charged at a range of public
25
land areas. Given that not only federal lands now charge fees, but also state parks in
many locations, it is important to examine the impact of fees from the perspective of the
user who is faced with a range of park and fee options.
26
III. METHODS
The following section will examine the methods used to test the research
hypothesis of this thesis, which is: public land access fees dissuade some people from
visiting public lands and people of lower incomes are more likely to be dissuaded by fees
than people of higher incomes. To be more accurate, this thesis is attempting to disprove
the null hypothesis that fees do not affect behavior and that income does not play a role in
reactions to fees.
The method used to study this question was an attitudinal survey of residents of
Whatcom County, Washington. This section will examine the study area and then will
discuss the research methodology used to conduct the survey. Finally, there will be a
discussion of the statistical analysis used to analyze the data.
Study Area
This research focused on Whatcom County, Washington, and the sample pool
consisted of county residents. Whatcom County is located in the far northwest corner of
Washington State and shares its northern border with Canada. It is home to a wide
variety of public lands (Figure 2). The eastern portion of the county is entirely dominated
by two federal land holdings: North Cascades National Park and the Mt. Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest. Scattered throughout the western half of the county are
various other public land units, including a number of state parks, county parks,
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife areas, and various urban parks such as
Bellingham City Parks.
27
Figure 2- Study Area Whatcom County, Washington
DETAIL OF BELLINGHAM AREA
Maps created using ArcMap in the Spatial Analysis Lab of Western Washington University in 2004-5 by Michael Kirshenbaum using publicly available data sets.
28
Until the mid 1990s, most of the public lands in Whatcom County were available
for visitation free-of-charge. But the situation has changed dramatically in recent years
and residents of Whatcom County currently pay a fee for access to many public land
areas. It is important to note, however, that fees are not charged at all access points. Mt.
Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, for example, has a number of trailheads and other
day-use areas for which no fee is charged. Fees are still charged at the majority of access
points, however, and at virtually all of the most popular recreation sites.
Although the study area for this thesis is Whatcom County, the survey questions
do not inquire solely about public lands in the county. All of the respondents for the
survey were drawn from the county, but I did not limit my questioning to their
experiences at public lands only in the county. Residents are likely to use public lands in
many areas and the issues surrounding public land fees are just as pertinent for the public
lands in those areas.
Methodology
To examine the impact of public land access fees on the attitudes and behavior of
Whatcom County residents, I conducted an attitudinal survey using standard survey
research techniques. Survey research was the most appropriate methodology for this
project because it is a time-tested technique for measuring human behaviors and attitudes
(Salant and Dillman 1994; Nardi 2003). It would have been almost impossible, for
example, to set up an actual experiment with two parks – one that charges fees and one
that doesn’t – and then hold all other factors constant in order to analyze the role that fees
play. An attitudinal survey, in contrast, allowed for a careful probing of people’s
29
attitudes and behaviors regarding public land access fees. Additionally, survey research
has been used in a number of other studies to examine the impact of public land access
fees.
Survey research has been likened to a telescope looking at society – it is the use of
scientific tools to gain a picture, small perhaps but hopefully accurate, of human attitudes
and behaviors (Featherman 2004). To use the telescope of survey research accurately,
however, requires proper design and adjustment of the instrument. Thus, there are a
number of steps in designing an effective survey and reducing the likelihood of error.
The design steps include: deciding what information will be collected and therefore what
the variables will be; choosing a survey method; selecting a sample size and method;
developing a survey instrument (questionnaire); conducting the survey; and finally
compiling and analyzing the results (Salant and Dillman 1994; Bourque and Fielder
2003; Nardi 2003; Featherman 2004).
All of the design steps must be carefully taken to minimize the impact of four
potential errors in survey research:
1. Coverage error: A large and important discrepancy between the target population
and the subset being examined produces coverage error. For example, using just
a phone book to generate telephone numbers might produce unacceptably high
coverage error because of unlisted numbers not being represented in the sample
pool.
2. Sampling error: This is the difference between results obtained from examining a
sample compared to the results that would be obtained from examining the entire
30
population. All surveys have sampling error, but the goal is to minimize it as
much as possible.
3. Measurement error: Problems caused by questionnaire wording, the survey
method, the interviewer or the respondent can all contribute to measurement error.
For example, a question that has vague, highly-subjective wording that might be
interpreted differently by each respondent could introduce high measurement
error.
4. Non-response error: If a survey has a large number of people who were selected
and not interviewed, and if those people who refused differed in some pertinent
way from those who did respond, then there is non-response error. Non-response
error leads to a sample pool that is not representative of the population and
therefore not truly random. There is always some degree of non-response error
because surveys never have 100 percent response rates. This error is mitigated by
obtaining the highest response rate possible and ensuring that the non-respondents
do not differ in some key way (i.e. more low-income people did not respond than
upper-income people) that is pertinent to the research.
Next, I will explain this project’s design and the steps taken to minimize the effect of
these potential errors.
Project Design: Key Information and Variables
Surveys can have an infinite number of questions but it is critical to identify the
key concepts that a survey is seeking to understand and design the survey accordingly.
For this survey, the key concepts are the parameters needed to test this project’s
hypothesis: determining whether Whatcom County residents are dissuaded from using
31
public lands by access fees and whether income plays a role in how people react to fees.
Therefore, it was important to collect information on both reaction to public land access
fees and the demographics of survey respondents. There are numerous potential
reactions to public land access fees, but the pertinent issues for the purposes of this thesis
are:
• Do fees affect how people use public lands?
• What are people’s attitudes about paying fees, both in terms of the
appropriateness of fees and the economics of paying fees?
• How are the above questions affected by income or other demographic
characteristics?
To be more specific, I used the above questions to generate a list of dependent and
independent variables that would serve as the basis for constructing the survey
instrument. The dependent variables measure how fees affect the following behaviors:
frequency of visitation; site selection; fee evasion; and the economic difficulty of paying
fees to visit public lands. Additional dependent variables measure the following
attitudes: support or opposition to fees as a method of funding public lands; and the
appropriateness of charging fees in the context of public versus private goods.
The primary independent variables measure standard demographic characteristics,
such as gender, age, income, education, and location. A secondary set of independent
variables measure outdoor behavior proclivity (hiker, hunter, biker, etc.). The
independent and dependent variables were then used in bivariate and multivariate
statistical analysis, as will soon be discussed in the Statistical Analysis section.
32
Project Design: Survey type
There are a number of methods for conducting survey research, including
telephone, mail, and internet surveys. All methods have pros and cons, but telephone
surveying is considered a top choice because it has significant advantages in reducing
errors (Salant and Dillman 1994; Nardi 2003): First, a telephone survey is usually the
quickest survey method, minimizing the impact of intervening events changing the
research environment. Second, unlike in mail or internet surveys, telephone surveys are
usually implemented by trained callers and the interaction between the respondent and
the survey instrument is highly controlled. With a mail survey, for example, a potential
respondent may “read ahead” and decide whether they will participate or not based upon
the content of the survey. With telephone surveys, there is only a short introductory
statement before a respondent decides whether he or she will participate. This reduces
the likelihood that respondents will self-select based on attitudes towards the survey
topic. Additionally, a telephone survey allows for the respondents to ask for clarification
of questions or answer categories (Salant and Dillman 1994; Nardi 2003).
The disadvantages of telephone surveys include: cost, because of the significant
labor and equipment requirements; and telephone surveys are not the preferred method
when the survey asks sensitive or private questions. As explained below, the cost issue
was mitigated by the creative recruitment of labor and the sensitivity issue was not
relevant because of the generally innocuous nature of questions regarding public lands.
Additionally, there are coverage error concerns with telephone surveys, as with all
surveys. Not all people have telephones, such as the homeless or those who cannot
afford or choose not to have telephones. However the penetration rate of telephones is
33
quite high, with 95 percent of residences in Washington State having telephones (NTIA
1999). Cell phones are not included in the sample pool because of the uncertain ethics of
calling phone numbers which charge the receiver for the call (Gillin 2002).7 These gaps
in the ability of a telephone survey to reach all people, therefore, introduce a small degree
of coverage error. This potential deficiency, however, is mitigated by the higher response
rate and other beneficial factors of telephone surveys compared to other methods.
Project Design: Sample method
For this project, I used a general population survey of a random sample of
Whatcom County residents. There is relatively little research that has been conducted
regarding access fees that has used a general population survey approach. Rather, most
of the survey research on this topic has used site-specific samples conducted at trailheads,
campgrounds and other public-land access points (More and Stevens 2000; Williams and
Black 2002). The disadvantage of using on-site surveys is that this method limits the
potential respondents only to those people who are already using the public lands. A
general population survey, conversely, allows for sampling the attitudes of all people and
may capture those who have been dissuaded from using public lands, a critical subgroup
for testing the hypothesis of this thesis.
Conducting a general population survey, therefore, necessitated a random
sampling method for the entire study area of Whatcom County, Washington. For a
general population telephone survey, the sample pool normally consists of all residential
telephone numbers in the given study area. The sampling method used for this survey
7 The omission of cell phone’s from telephone surveys is a growing concern in the survey research field and there is fear that younger people, many of whom rely on cell phones as their primary telephone service, may become underrepresented in surveys if current trends continue.
34
was a stratified random sample with an oversampling of phone numbers from lower-
income areas of the county. This was done to ensure that there would be enough
respondents from lower-income households to perform robust statistical analysis. A
similar method was used in a previous access-fee study (More and Stevens 2000). A
stratified sample is not a true random sample because some types of people, in this case
low-income, are over-represented in the sample pool. Therefore it may be better to
consider this method as providing a study-specific sample that cannot be generalized to
the larger population. On the other hand, the stratified sample used for this survey
resulted in a fairly accurate representation of Whatcom County demographics, as
compared to the 2000 U.S. Census (see Results section below), therefore the sample
could be considered to be representative of the general population.
The sample pool of phone numbers was generated by a survey database company,
Survey Sampling International (SSI), using a random-digit-dial (RDD) technique. RDD
uses a computer to randomly generate the final four digits of phone numbers in assigned
prefix areas. SSI also screened the calls for disconnected numbers and businesses,
although this screening missed a high percentage of such invalid numbers.
The project had a sample size target of 300 respondents. This total was based on
survey research statistical guidelines that show, for a population of more than 100,000
(Whatcom County has a population of 166,814 according to the 2000 Census), a sample
size of 300 produces a sampling error of plus or minus five percent at the 95 percent
confidence level (Salant and Dillman 1994). In other words, I can claim that this
research is 95 percent confident that the results of the survey are within plus or minus
five percent of the results for the actual population. To explain this concept using an
35
example: Consider a survey that shows support for Candidate A at 55 percent and support
for Candidate B at 45 percent with a sampling error of four percent at the 95 percent
confidence interval. That means that the survey researcher could state that they are 95
percent confident that, if the entire population were surveyed, support for Candidate A
would be between 51 and 59 percent and support for Candidate B would be between 41
and 49 percent.
Project Design: Survey Instrument Construction
The process of translating a general research problem into discrete survey
questions is called operationalizing. This involves taking the dependent and independent
variables – response to public land access fees and demographic information – and
converting them into a questionnaire, known as a survey instrument.
Question design is a complex task. To minimize measurement error, the
questions must be written in a way that reduces subjective interpretation of the wording
and is clear and accessible to the respondents. One method of determining appropriate
language is to conduct focus groups in order to scope the range and style of language
used by potential respondents (Salant and Dillman 1994; Nardi 2003). This project did
not include focus groups, however, due to time and cost limitations Another method of
good survey design is to examine existing research and adopt previously tested language.
I examined several previous surveys regarding public land fees and adopted some of the
language from those survey instruments (More and Stevens 2000; Burns, Graefe et al.
2002).
Another step to reduce measurement error and design good questions is to pre-test
the survey and then make adjustments to the wording of questions based on the
36
experience of reading the questions to pseudo-respondents (Bourque and Fielder 2003).
A pre-test was conducted for this project and provided useful fine-tuning of the questions.
Question order is also an important consideration for survey construction. This
survey began by asking users a series of questions about what types of public lands they
use and what types of activities they do at those public lands. The objectives of these
preliminary questions were two-fold: First, the questions provided useful information
about the interests of respondents that could be used for statistical analysis (i.e.: Do
backpackers support fees more or less than hunters?). Second, and primarily, these
questions were asked at the beginning of the survey in order to stimulate recall of
visitation to public lands in advance of the more important questions about public land
access fees. Encouraging recall through introductory questions is a recommended
technique in survey research (Salant and Dillman 1994; Nardi 2003).
The second half of the survey asked a series of questions about public land access
fees. These questions can be divided into two categories: behavioral and attitudinal. The
behavioral questions focused on whether people changed their actions because of access
fees, such as going to parks without fees or going to parks less because of fees. The other
questions examined attitudes towards fees, including whether it is difficult to pay fees
and whether it is appropriate for fees to be charged. The survey features multiple
questions for each of these categories so that the respondent’s attitudes can be assessed
from a variety of angles. Asking multiple questions in order to assess attitudes and
behaviors is based on the “scaling” survey technique. The advantage of scaling is that it
avoids oversimplification and allows for the integration of a series of questions into the
analysis of how people think and behave about an issue (Salant and Dillman 1994).
37
Lastly, the survey turned to demographic questions, most of which serve as the
independent variables for the statistical analysis. It is common survey practice to ask the
demographic questions at the end of a survey because these are relatively easy questions
for tired respondents to answer (Nardi 2003).
Project Design: Conducting the survey
The interviewers for the survey consisted of myself and 11 undergraduate
students. The students participated in the survey as part of a one-credit independent
study course in survey research methodology taught by Professor Grace Wang. The
assignments for the class consisted of approximately ten hours of phone calling for this
project. To minimize the effects of measurement error that can be produced by the
interviewers, all of the callers were trained in survey research interviewing techniques
through readings, lectures and instruction by a professional survey researcher, Dr. Pamela
Jull. Additionally, all of the calling took place under supervision so that any
clarifications needed by callers or respondents could be quickly addressed and then
shared with the entire group of interviewers to ensure consistent application of the survey
instrument.
The telephone survey was conducted over the course of May, 2005. Calls were
primarily made in the early evening hours of weekdays (6:00 – 9:00pm), but some calling
was conducted on weekends and during afternoons. All calling was conducted at
Western Washington University (WWU) using the school’s computers and telephone
equipment. The survey instrument was loaded onto WWU’s computer server using
Perseus Survey Solutions software, a web-based survey software package. The
interviewers then accessed the survey via the internet, read the questions from the
38
computer monitor and entered the results via mouse and keyboard. The software
compiled the results into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which was then imported into
SPSS 13.0 for data analysis.
Statistical Analysis
I used several statistical techniques in this project to analyze the survey data.
First, I used univariate descriptive statistical techniques, such as frequencies, to examine
broad patterns of response to the survey questions. This technique allowed for measuring
the overall response to the questions, from all of the people who were interviewed,
without regards to how various subgroups answered the question differently.
Next, I examined the data using bivariate techniques to assess relationships
between the independent variables, such as income, and dependent variables, such as
reaction to fees. The answers to each question can be analyzed to show how respondents
from different income groups answered the questions; for example, what percentage of
low-income respondents, compared to upper-income respondents, are opposed to fees?
This method is called “crosstabulation” and is a very simple but useful technique that
allows for an introductory exploration of the results to find associations between
variables. Another advantage of crosstabulation is that it is ideally suited for nominal or
ordinal data (Nardi 2003).
To test the hypothesis of this thesis, it was necessary to use more advanced,
multivariate statistical techniques to determine to what extent income, versus other
characteristics, played a role in how respondents answered the questions. Therefore, I
used linear and logistic regression to examine the role of income versus other
independent variables. Regression works best with data that are at the interval or ratio
39
measurement levels, yet it is still possible to use this technique to analyze survey
research. Doing so involves converting answer categories with equal appearing intervals
into a numerical scale (Nardi 2003). For example, suppose a survey question has five
answer categories such as: (1) strongly agree, (2) somewhat agree, (3) neither agree nor
disagree, (4) somewhat disagree or (5) strongly disagree. These answer categories have
equal-appearing differences between them. Each answer category can then be coded as
one through five and those values can then be used in a linear regression. So if someone
answers “somewhat agree” to a question, the value for that variable would be two.
A potential problem with using linear regression is that several of the questions in
the survey did not have answer categories with equal-appearing intervals. A logistic
regression was used to analyze the results for these questions. The reason for this is
linear regression cannot use dichotomous dependent variables (for example, did or did
not buy a parking pass). Linear regression allows dependent variables to have values of
greater than one or less than zero, and with dichotomous variables the values can only be
zero or one. A logistic regression, however, operates only within the zero to one range
and therefore is more appropriate for dichotomous variables (Pampel 2000).
Another potential roadblock to using regression analysis is that not all of the
independent variables produced interval- or ratio-level data. Some of the variables, such
as location (rural / urban) and sex (male / female), are purely nominal-level data which
are not compatible with regression analysis. Therefore I used “dummy variables” in
order to convert the data for the regression. Creating dummy variables allows for the
representation of qualitative, or nominal, information in quantitative terms that can then
be plugged into a regression analysis. Defining dummy variables involves creating a set
40
of dichotomous, true / false variables that represents all of the categories of the base
variables (Hardy 1993). For example, the independent variable of gender has two
nominal answer categories (male / female) that cannot be ranked or given a numerical
value in any way and are thus impossible to use in a regression. Converting the variable
into a dichotomous true / false statement, with true equaling one and false equaling zero,
produces a value that can be plugged into a regression. Thus, nominal- or ordinal-level
answer scales are converted into a series of ratio-level variables.
One important note on dummy variables is that there is always one less dummy
variable created than the total number of answer categories in the original base variable.
Using the gender question example again, if we created a dummy variable category for
respondents answering “female,” with those saying female receiving a value of one (true)
and those saying male receiving a value of zero (not true), then we would not need to
create a “male” dummy variable with the opposite values. The reason for this is because
of the regression rule that explanatory variables cannot be written to form a perfect linear
combination of variables, in order to avoid redundancy (Hardy 1993). Therefore, in the
results section the reader will note that there appears to be several variables absent from
the regression coefficient tables. Only a “female” variable is listed, but not a “male”
variable, and there are only variables for two of the three income categories. The “male”
variable or the “upper income” variable are not present by design – all of the missing
variables form a reference group from which the visible variables can be compared.
One final note to avoid confusion when looking at the regression tables: there are
several variables labeled “missing” in the tables. These are not the missing dummy
variables as described above but rather refer to all respondents who did not answer
41
certain questions. For example, the variable Income Missing refers to all of the non-
responses – people who refused to answer or hung up early – to that demographic
question.
42
IV. RESULTS
This section examines the results to the key questions in the survey. First, I will
provide a summary of the most important results. Next, will be a discussion of the
survey’s response rate, followed by an overview of the demographics of the survey
respondents. Finally, there is a presentation of the results from the primary survey
questions regarding the attitudes and behaviors of people towards public land access fees.
Please note that results for every question are not reported here – some of the survey
questions had wording problems or were not relevant to the overall analysis. The
complete results for the entire survey can be found in the appendix.
Summary of Key Findings
In general, this survey interviewed a fairly representative sample of the Whatcom
County population. Most of the respondents are very involved in outdoor activities, visit
public lands frequently and are aware of public land access fees. While there are
consistent majorities who support fees or do not find fees to affect how often they use
public lands, there is a sizeable minority who are negatively affected by fees. That
minority is disproportionately made up of lower-income residents.
Some of the specifics are:
• The survey found that there is wide exposure to public land access fees in
Whatcom County with 60 percent reporting having paid an access fee for public
lands.
• Approximately 50 to 60 percent of respondents reported, over a series of
questions, that fees do not affect their behavior.
43
CC ________________ RR = Total valid contacts: CC+R+NA+CB RR = Response rate CC = Completed calls R = Refused to participate NA = No answer / voice mail / line busy CB = Call back scheduled
• About 30 to 40 percent of respondents reported, over a series of questions, being
negatively affected by fees – meaning they were dissuaded from using public
lands that charge fees or found it hard to pay fees.
• Income is consistently the most important variable in predicting response to fees.
Lower-income respondents reported being much more negatively affected by fees
than respondents from the middle and upper income groups. These findings are
statistically significant (p < 0.05) for most of the questions.
• The questions regarding the appropriateness of charging fees did not follow the
pattern of major differentiation between income groups and did not generate
statistically significant results. In general, the results showed majorities
supporting the policy of using fees to pay for public lands.
Response Rate
A total of 1,386 phone numbers were called during the survey (Table 3). Of
those, there were 648 valid contacts with 301 completed calls for a response rate of 46
Table 3 – Calling Results
Completed calls 301 Refused 249 No answer/ Voice Mail / Busy 91Callback 7Total valid contacts 648 Bad # 546 Unable to respond (language) 33Max attempts (5 calls) 159 Total invalid contacts 738 Total telephone #s called: 1386 Response rate (completes / valid contacts)
46%
Figure 3 – Response Rate
44
percent. The response rate was calculated using the formula shown in Figure 3. Each
respondent did not necessarily answer all of the questions – some refused to answer
certain questions and a few hung-up in the middle of the survey. Therefore, there are less
than 301 responses for most of the questions. There is no standard response rate level – it
depends on many factors (method, subject, time, resources) but the higher the better (Fink
2003).
Demographics
In general, the demographic results obtained in the survey track fairly closely to
the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2000 results for Whatcom County (U.S.-Census-Bureau 2000).
One important note is that for the purposes of the statistical analysis of this research,
much of the demographic data are aggregated into broader categories, i.e. income into
three categories of low-, middle-, and high-income. The aggregation categories for
income, as well as other demographics such as age, are not based on any preconceived
definitions – i.e. “low income” does not correspond to the federal poverty level. Rather, I
created the subgroups to test whether there is a difference in reaction to fees based on a
range of incomes. For the purposes of testing the hypothesis, it is less important to
discover how the “poor,” as defined by the federal government, react to fees than it is to
examine whether fees affect people differently based on a range of incomes.
(continued on next page)
45
The following is a summary of the main demographic results:
• Household income: The survey results are very close (max variance < 5%) to the
2000 Census data:
Table 4 – Household Income in Whatcom County
Survey Frequency
Survey%
2000 Census%
Low Income$0-34,999
120 40.3% 43.6%
Middle Income $35,000-74,999
114 38.3% 38.2%
High Income $75,000+
41 13.8% 18.2%
Refused 23 7.7% n/a Subtotal 298 100.0% 100.0% Missing 3
Total 301 A binomial test comparing the sample and the Census data found that there were
no statistically significant differences for the income categories with the exception of for
the high income category.
• Education level: The survey had a more highly-educated sample with 75 percent
of respondents with at least some college-level education compared to 60 percent
in the 2000 Census. A binomial test shows that there is a statistically significant
difference between the sample and the Census.
• Age: The survey respondents were slightly older than what is reported in the
2000 census, but the differences are small:
Table 5 - Age Results
Survey 2000 Census
18 – 34 years 29% 36% 35 – 54 years 40% 38% 55 or over 30% 24%
46
A binomial test found that there is a statistically significant difference between the
survey sample and the Census data for the 18-34 and 55 or over groups.
• Race: The survey sample has 90 percent reporting being “white.” This compares
to 88 percent for the 2000 Census. This difference is not statistically significant.
• Gender: 61 percent reported being female and 39 percent male in the survey.
These results are somewhat different from the 2000 Census, which reports 51
percent female and 49 male. It is not uncommon for females to respond to
telephone surveys at a higher rate than males, and the gender difference in this
survey is consistent with previous survey research (Dillman 1978). A binomial
test shows a statistically significant difference between the Census data and
survey sample.
Results for General Outdoor Usage Questions
These questions examined which types of public lands, as defined by agency,
respondents frequented in the past year and what types of activities they did at these
public lands. These questions were asked at the beginning of the survey to stimulate
memory of using public lands before asking the important fee questions. Additionally,
the answers to these questions provided another set of characteristics to use as
independent variables.
• Public land usage question: “Please tell me whether you have visited this type of
area since May of last year:” The results show that city parks top the list with 73
percent (Figure 4). Additionally, 97 percent reported visiting at least one of the
different types of public lands in the past year.
47
• Activity question: “Please tell me which of these you like to do:” The results
(Figure 5) show that Whatcom County residents engage in a wide-range of
activities at public lands.
Figure 5 – Outdoor activities in the past year
Tell me if you like to do any of the following activities
87%
61% 59%53%
42%35%
28% 23%15%
75%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Picnick
ing
Hiking
Boatin
g
Tent Cam
ping
Fishing
Bicycli
ng
Overni
ght b
ackpa
cking
Running
RV Cam
ping
Huntin
g
Percent answering
"yes"
The final general outdoor usage question asked whether people visit parks as
often as they would like. The results of that question found that only 39 percent reported
Figure 4 - Public Land Usage
73% 69% 68% 65%
50%42%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
City pa
rksNatio
nal Fo
rests
County
Parks
State p
arksOthe
r Park
sNatio
nal pa
rks
Percent answering that
they have visited the following land
types in the previous year
48
going to parks “as often as they would like.” The survey then asked why they don’t go as
often as they would like. By far the most important reason was being too busy, with 86
percent responding that they “don’t have enough time.” In an effort to begin to
understand to what extent economics play a role in decisions about visiting parks, the
respondents were also asked if one of the reasons for not going often was “You can’t
afford to go?” Twenty-seven percent said this was a reason they don’t go to parks as
often as they would like.
Results for Behavioral Fee Questions
Q: How does the requirement to pay a fee affect how often you go to those places?
It is clear from the first question about fees – which asked whether people go to
public lands the same, less often or more often because of fees – that fees affect the
behavior of some people: Nearly 38 percent of the respondents reported decreased
visitation to public lands because of fees. Cross-tabulating the data to examine how the
different income groups answered the question shows that a much higher percentage of
the lower-income group (49.6 percent) reports going less often because of fees than the
other income groups. As the chart shows (Figure 6), there is a clear linear trend related to
income and response to the question – the bar representing “go less often” decreases as
income increases. In other words, the deterrent effect of fees is most strongly seen for
lower income group and most weakly reported by the upper income group.
49
Figure 6 How does the requirement to pay a fee affect
how often you go to those places?
A logistic regression of this question examined the relative strength of all of the
demographic independent variables in answering the question. The results show (Table
6) that the low-income variable has the highest coefficient and is the only variable,
besides the missing income variable8, to be statistically significant (p < 0.01). The
positive coefficient can be understood to mean that there is a positive relationship
between the “go less often” variable and the “low income” variable. Conversely, there is
a negative relationship between the “college educated” variable and the “go less often”
variable.
8 The missing income variable (Income - missing) tabulates those who refused to answer the question or who ended the survey before answering this question. It is possible that people with lower incomes would be more likely to refuse to answer the question to avoid embarrassment. If this were true, it would explain the finding that the missing income variable has the second strongest association to going to parks less often because of fees. But since there is no way of proving this point, the missing income variable should be ignored.
49.6%
34.5%
18.4%
50.5%
80.5%
65.4%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Low (0 -$34,999)
Middle ($35 -74,999)
High($75,000+)
Go Less Often Go Same / More Often
50
Table 6 - Fees and visitation question How does the requirement at some parks to pay a parking or
entry fee affect how often you go to those places? Logistic Regression (0 = go the same / more often; 1 = go less often)
B S.E. Sig. Exp(B) Income – low ($0 - $34,999) 1.265** .448 .005 3.542 Income – middle ($35 - $74,999) .786 .451 .081 2.195 Income – missing 1.217* .588 .039 3.376 Age – young (18-34 yrs) .201 .332 .544 1.223 Age – middle (35-55 yrs) .141 .303 .641 1.152 Age – missing -.213 1.026 .835 .808 Race – white -.578 .385 .134 .561 Education – college -.333 .291 .252 .717 Gender – female .402 .265 .129 1.494 Location – Bellingham .076 .249 .759 1.079 Constant -1.081 .632 .087 .339
* Significant at the p < 0.05 level ** Significant at the p< 0.01 level
Q: In the past year, have you avoided going to any parks because there was a parking
fee?
The next question asked if the respondents had avoided any parks because of fees
in the year leading up to the survey. The overall results show that 22 percent answered
affirmatively. A cross-tabulation examining how the different income groups answered
this question shows (Figure 7) that lower-income respondents were much more likely to
say they had avoided parks because of fees than the higher income groups.
51
A logistic regression analysis similarly shows income to be the most important factor. In
this case, the “missing” income variable has a stronger association, but the low-income
variable is close behind (Table 7). Both are statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Table 7 – Avoidance of paying a fee In the past year, have you avoided going to any
parks because there was a parking fee? Logistic regression (0= no; 1 = yes)
B S.E. Sig. Exp(B) Income – low ($0 - $34,999) 1.471* .574 .010 4.354 Income – middle ($35 - $74,999) .384 .599 .521 1.469 Income – missing 1.936** .695 .005 6.934 Age – young (18-34 yrs) .057 .380 .881 1.059 Age – middle (35-55 yrs) -.021 .357 .953 .979 Age – missing -1.120 1.277 .380 .326 Race – white -.625 .417 .134 .535 Education – college -.447 .327 .173 .640 Gender – female .111 .309 .720 1.117 Location – Bellingham .285 .290 .326 1.330 Constant -1.533 .760 .044 .216 * Significant at the p < 0.05 level
** Significant at the p< 0.01 level
Figure 7 – Avoidance of paying a fee in the past year
In the past year, have you avoided going to anypublic lands because there was a parking fee?
34%
14%10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Low (0 - $34,999) Middle ($35 -74,999)
High ($75,000+)
Percent within each income group
answering "yes"
52
Q: Have you ever avoided paying fees by going to another park that doesn’t charge fees?
The next question asked whether the respondents altered their site selection in
order to go to a park that didn’t charge fees. The overall results show that 36 percent of
the respondents avoid fees by going to a park that doesn’t charge fees.
The cross-tabulation for
this question shows that members
of the lower-income group were
much more likely to choose free
parks than the higher income
groups ( Figure 8). A logistic
regression analysis found that the
low-income variable has the
strongest statistically significant
association (p < 0.01) with answering affirmatively, but it also shows that the middle
income group has a significant, but weaker, association (Table 8). Interestingly, residents
of Bellingham also reported altering their site location to avoid fees at a statistically
significant level (p < 0.05).
Figure 8 – Altered site selection
Have you ever avoided paying fees by going to another park that doesn't charge fees?
46%
32%
17%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Low (0 -$34,999)
Middle ($35 -74,999)
High($75,000+)
Percent w ithin income group
answ ering "yes"
53
Table 8 – Altered site selection Q: Have you ever avoided paying fees by going to a park that doesn't charge fees?
Logistic Regression (0= no; 1 = yes) B S.E. Sig. Exp(B) Income – low ($0 - $34,999) 1.614** .474 .001 5.025 Income – middle ($35 - $74,999) .973* .473 .040 2.646 Income – missing 1.659** .613 .007 5.253 Age – young (18-34 yrs) .585 .341 .086 1.796 Age – middle (35-55 yrs) .483 .315 .125 1.620 Age – missing .544 1.058 .607 1.723 Race – white -.111 .393 .778 .895 Education – college .131 .298 .661 1.140 Gender – female -.458 .267 .086 .633 Location – Bellingham .535* .255 .036 1.708 Constant -2.136 .660 .001 .118
* Significant at the p < 0.05 level ** Significant at the p< 0.01 level
Q: Do you ever avoid fees by parking outside of the official parking lots and walking in?
The final behavioral question asked whether respondents park outside of official
parking lots and then walk in to avoid paying parking fees. This is a common practice in
the Bellingham area as seen on weekends along entrances to Larrabee State Park. Thirty-
seven percent responded affirmatively to this question. The crosstabulated data and a
logistic regression show that income does not play a role, but age does ( Table 9).
Younger respondents were much more likely to answer in the affirmative and the finding
is highly significant (p < .01). A possible explanation for this is that younger people are
more able, because of being fit and willing, to park at some distance from a destination
and then walk in to avoid complying with the fee system.
54
Table 9 – Walk-in to avoid fees Q: Do you ever avoid paying fees by parking outside
the official parking lots and walking in? Logistic regression (0 = no; 1 = yes)
B S.E. Sig. Exp(B) Income – low ($0 - $34,999) .350 .413 .397 1.419 Income – middle ($35 - $74,999) .533 .410 .194 1.703 Income – missing -.389 .686 .571 .678 Age – young (18-34 yrs) 1.369** .343 .000 3.933 Age – middle (35-55 yrs) .502 .320 .116 1.653 Age – missing -19.992 16202.824 .999 .000 Race – white -.540 .389 .165 .583 Education – college -.123 .298 .680 .884 Gender – female -.061 .264 .818 .941 Location – Bellingham .083 .254 .745 1.086 Constant -.924 .629 .142 .397
** Significant at the p< 0.01 level
Results for Attitudinal Fee Questions
This set of questions explored the respondents’ opinions regarding the difficulty
and appropriateness of paying access fees. Some of these questions presented an answer
scale with equal-appearing intervals and thus linear regression is used for these questions.
Q: Paying a fee is economically hard for me to do.
The first question asked whether paying a fee is economically difficult. The
overall results show that 30 percent either somewhat or strongly agreed with the
statement that paying a fee is “economically hard for me to do” while 61 percent either
somewhat or strongly disagreed with the statement. An examination of the data using
income as a factor demonstrates that a significant percentage of the low-income group
(45%) agreed that paying fees is economically difficult (Figure 9). Strikingly, none of
the high-income respondents agreed that paying a fee is difficult.
55
Beta t Sig.
Income – low ($0 - $34,999) -.558** -6.605 .000Income – middle ($35 - $74,999) -.267** -3.223 .001Income – missing -.182** -2.664 .008Age – young (18-34 yrs) .048 .718 .473Age – middle (35-55 yrs) -.036 -.555 .580Age – missing -.066 -1.113 .267Race – white .008 .136 .892Education – college .098 1.751 .081Gender – female -.031 -.549 .584Location – Bellingham -.017 -.316 .752Constant 11.372 .000
** Significant at the p< 0.01 level
Figure 9 – Economic difficulty of paying fees
Paying a fee is economically hard for me to do
45%
24%
00%
20%
40%
60%
Low (0 - $34,999) Middle ($35 - 74,999) High ($75,000+)
Percent within income group to either "strongly" or "somewhat
strongly" agree
A linear regression confirms that there is a highly significant relationship (p <
0.01) with the low income and middle income variables (Table 10). The Beta coefficient
for the low-income variable is twice as strong as for the middle income variable, showing
the strongest effect on the lowest income group. Note that these associations are negative
which is explained by the values
assigned to the answer categories. The
answer “strongly agree” has a value of
one and the dichotomous dummy
variable for the income categories also
has a value of one. Therefore the
regression line has a downward slope,
showing that the more strongly a
respondent disagreed with the
Table 10- Economic difficulty of paying feesPaying a fee is economically hard for me to do.
Linear regression (1= strongly agree. . . 5= strongly disagree)
56
question, the less likely they were to be in the low income group.
Q: I am opposed to paying fees so I don’t like to go to parks that charge fees.
The next question asked whether respondents are opposed to paying fees and
therefore avoid parks that charge fees. This question is both behavioral and attitudinal,
because it inquired about opposition to fees as well as of avoidance of parks that have
fees. In hindsight, the dual nature of the question is a mistake and the results should be
interpreted with care. Still, it is worth including in the analysis because it is the only
question that used the word “oppose” and therefore may be a good indicator of outright
resistance to fees.
The overall results show that a majority of people are not opposed to paying fees:
only 34 percent of the respondents either somewhat or strongly agreed with the statement,
and 55 percent either somewhat or strongly disagreed. An examination of the data using
income groups as the reference, however, shows (Figure 10) that a significantly larger
number of low-income respondents (39%) are opposed to paying fees compared to the
upper income group (20%).
I am opposed to paying fees so I don't like to go to those parks that charge fees
39%32%
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Low (0 - $34,999) Middle ($35 - 74,999) High ($75,000+)
Percent within each income
group to either "strongly" or "somewhat
strongly" agree
Figure 9 – Opposition to fees
57
A linear regression of the results shows that the low-income group has a
statistically significant (p < 0.05) negative relationship to the question. Interestingly,
there is a highly statistically significant (p < 0.01) positive relationship between the
college educated group and the question, showing that there is less opposition and
avoidance of fees from the more highly educated group (Table 11).
Table 11- Opposition to fees Q: I am opposed to paying fees at parks so I don’t like
to go to those parks that charge fees Linear regression (1=strongly agree . . . 5=strongly disagree)
Beta t Sig. Income – low ($0 - $34,999) -.254** -2.884 .004 Income – middle ($35 - $74,999) -.164 -1.892 .060 Income – missing -.160* -2.228 .027 Age – young (18-34 yrs) .078 1.118 .264 Age – middle (35-55 yrs) .032 .480 .632 Age – missing -.017 -.271 .786 Race – white .105 1.807 .072 Education – college .217** 3.665 .000 Gender – female .046 .786 .433 Location – Bellingham -.017 -.304 .761 Constant 6.302 .000
* Significant at the p < 0.05 level ** Significant at the p< 0.01 level Q: Do you think that going to public lands should be totally free, like going to a library,
or that it’s okay to charge entry fee, like going to a movie?
Finally, the survey asked two questions regarding the appropriateness of charging
fees. The first question asked whether public lands should be treated like public libraries,
with free access, or whether it’s acceptable to charge for entry, like going to a movie.
The overall results show a somewhat split opinion, with 49 percent saying that it’s okay
to charge fees and 43 percent saying entry should be free, like libraries. Examining the
answers based on income shows that the upper income group is very supportive of
58
charging entry fees, with 65 percent of this group in favor of fees and only 28 percent
saying parks should be free. A plurality of the lower-income group believes parks should
be free of charge (Figure 11). A logistic regression and chi-square analysis, however, do
not find these results to be statistically significant.
Figure 10 – Parks treated like libraries or movie theaters?
Do you think that going to parks and other public lands should be totally free, like going to a public library, or that it's okay to
charge fees, like going to a movie?
44%49%
65%
46% 44%
28%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Low (0 -$34,999)
Middle ($35 -74,999)
High($75,000+)
Percent within each income group
Okay to chargefees - like movies
Should be free -like libraries
Q: Do you think operating funds should come primarily through fees, taxes, or a mix?
The other appropriateness-to-pay question also failed to find statistically
significant results. This question asked whether operating funds should come primarily
through fees, primarily through taxes, or from a mix of the two. A regression analysis
was not possible for this question because of the answer categories. The overall results
shows that a majority (58 percent) favors a mix of the two, with 32 percent believing
revenue should come primarily from general taxes, and only 7 percent saying it should
come primarily from fees. Income does not appear to play a role in the answers to this
59
question (Figure 12): 63 percent of the low-income respondents, 54 percent of the
middle-income respondents and 59 percent of the upper-income respondents answered
that operating funds should come from a mix of fees and taxes.
Figure 11 - Source of funding
Do you think that operating funds should come primarily through . .
5%8% 10%
29%35%
32%
63%
54%59%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Low (0 -$34,999)
Middle ($35 -74,999)
High($75,000+)
Percent within income group
FeesTaxesMix of Fees and Taxes
Additional Analysis With Extended Independent Variable Model
In addition to analyzing the answers to the above questions using a standard
demographic model, I also used the answers to the activity question as additional
independent variables. Doing so allowed for an examination of whether activity choice
plays a role in determining reaction to fees. In other words, the list of independent
variables is expanded to include not only characteristics such as age, income, gender, etc.
but also to include identifiers such as being a hunter or a hiker. The results show,
however, that activity choice appears to play a limited role in responding to fees, with a
60
few important exceptions (regression tables for the extended model can be found in
Appendix B):
• In response to the “paying a fee is economically hard for me to do” question,
respondents who identified fishing as an activity of choice joined the lower and
middle income groups in answering the question affirmatively at a statistically
significant level (p < .05).
• With regards to the “I am opposed to paying fees, so I don’t like to go to parks
that charge fees” question, hunters joined the lower income group as also having a
statistically significant response to the question. Interestingly, RV campers joined
the college educated group in disagreeing with the question at statistically
significant levels.
• People who fish also joined the lower income groups as responding affirmatively
to the question: “Have you ever avoided paying fees by going to another park that
doesn’t charge fees?” Although not as strong of an association as the income
variables, the fishing variable is statistically significant (p < .05).
• The question concerning avoiding fees by not parking in official lots found the
young age group as having a significant relationship in the original model. The
expanded model, however, shows that only hikers report this behavior (p < 0.05),
which is consistent with observations of hikers parking outside of trailheads and
walking in. The fact that the extended model does not show the younger group as
having statistically significant results suggests a high level of co-linearity between
the young group and the hiking group.
61
Qualitative Results
In addition to the empirical survey data, I also collected qualitative data from
some of the respondents. The gathering of these comments was somewhat unscientific –
if respondents voiced additional comments while they were answering the survey
questions, then I attempted to capture their comments, verbatim, in a Microsoft Word
document. To verify the accuracy of the comments, I would then read what I typed back
to the respondent and make any changes they requested. I did not make an attempt to
solicit comments from all of the callers, therefore these comments should be regarded as
anecdotal and only coming from the subset of people who were more outspoken, by
nature, or who had strong enough opinions to verbalize additional feedback. Those
caveats aside, the comments included here may provide insight to the reasoning and
emotions behind attitudes and behaviors concerning fees.
Several respondents commented on the economic difficulty of paying fees:
“I’m a mother with four small kids and it’s hard for me to pay fees.” “I can remember when we were dirt poor and all we could afford to do was go to parks. So I wish that parks didn’t charge fees.” “I have concerns that if it affects me then for people with less money it might affect them more. It’s hard to find a place to not pay the fee.” “I’m glad you called because I was really disgusted with the fee the last time we went to Larrabee and now we don’t go there any more. As a parent, families with children don’t usually have extra money to go to a park.” “Do I pay $5 for a park or $5 towards the bill for my teeth?”
Other respondents had comments regarding the fairness of paying taxes and fees:
“I resent the fact that they take my tax money that I pay for these parks and then they make me pay $5 to go have a picnic”
62
“They should be free; haven’t our tax dollars paid for them already?” “Taxpayers are already paying to keep them and that kindof burns me up, we already paid for it once. They keep raising the taxes and then they come back and want to charge entry fees and I totally disagree with that.”
A number of respondents also voiced support for fees, and that attitude was
generally tied into support for the upkeep of public lands:
“I think if someone uses some place they should pay for it.” “I think fees are okay because they do a lot of good things and keep the parks up for us; they should be kept low for young families. They keep them nice, keep the garbage picked up, the money is used for a good purpose.” “If it’s within reason then I don’t see why not because there’s a need to keep up the park.” “I think it’s okay because it probably helps out with the maintenance of the place; and people would probably live in them if they didn’t have to pay.” “Fees are okay as long as it’s not an outlandish fee because they help maintain the parks and keep them usable.” “I think it’s okay to charge because they have to pay people to keep up the parks. I agree pretty strongly that it’s okay for them to charge people to go to parks.” “I think it’s okay to charge fees, especially if it helps to keep the parks up.”
Summary of Results
The research results have disproved the null hypothesis that there is not a
relationship between fees, visitation patterns, and income. The lower-income group
consistently reported being more negatively affected by fees than the higher income
groups. The lower-income group responded, at statistically significant levels (p < .05)
that they do not use parks as often because of fees, that fees are economically hard to pay,
63
that they change their site selection because of fees, and that they are opposed to paying
fees. Income did not appear to play a role, however, in the attitudinal questions regarding
the appropriateness of charging fees. Without considering income effects, there is
majority support for fees and most people do not report being negatively affected by fees.
64
V. DISCUSSION
This thesis has investigated the relationship between public land access fees and
the treatment of public lands as merit goods. The fundamental nature of parks as merit
goods would be called into question if they are no longer available to all citizens,
regardless of an ability to pay. Therefore, the research question for this project focused
on whether public land access fees affect how people use public lands and whether
income level, an indirect measure of ability to pay, is related to the impact of fees. More
specifically, this project’s hypothesis is that those with lower incomes would be more
likely than upper income individuals to report being dissuaded from using public lands by
access fees.
Discussion of Results
The research conducted for this thesis clearly shows that public land access fees
affect how some Whatcom County residents use public lands. This finding is consistent
with previous research from different areas of the county. It is also consistent with new
data from Washington State Parks, which shows a nearly 20 percent drop-off in visitation
to state parks since the inception of fees in 2002 (Freiderich 2005). Indeed, the survey
question that asked most directly whether fees affect the frequency of visitation to public
lands found that nearly 40 percent of the respondents reported going to parks less often
because of fees. Additional questions attempting to more fully understand the impact of
fees found a significant number of respondents stating that fees change how they use
public lands: 22 percent said that they had avoided going to a park because of a fee in the
65
previous year; 36 percent said they avoid paying fees by going to parks that don’t charge
fees; and 37 percent reported parking outside of official parking lots to avoid paying fees.
Regarding the attitudes of Whatcom County residents towards fees, the results are
fairly similar. Nearly 30 percent of the respondents agreed with one of the most
important survey questions for the purposes of testing the hypothesis: “Paying a fee is
economically hard for me to do.” Similarly 33 percent reported being opposed to paying
fees and 43 percent said that parks should be treated like another merit good, libraries,
with free access.
The results also show, however, that support for fees is generally strong, with
majorities of between 50 and 60 percent reacting positively towards fees: 54 percent said
they were not opposed to fees and nearly 56 percent reported that fees do not affect how
often they visit public lands. There was also a majority that supports the appropriateness
of charging entry fees and who do not seem concerned about fees as a management
policy: 58 percent favor using a mix of taxes and fees to pay for public lands.
Taken at face value, these results suggest that most people are not adversely
affected by fees and generally approve of using fees as a way to pay for the upkeep of
public lands. Yet, when it comes to examining the impact of fees on the democratic
nature of public lands, demonstrating simple majority support is insufficient. Alexis de
Tocqueville’s famous warning of democracy’s potential for a “tyranny of the majority”
should be heeded when considering the impact of public land access fees (Tocqueville
2004). Indeed, majority support for fees does not ensure their consistently with the
democratic history and mission of public lands in the United States.
66
The research presented here shows that fees run counter to the treatment of public
lands as merit goods. This is because fees dissuade people from using public lands and
because this pressure is not felt equally by all socioeconomic groups. As the results
demonstrate, it is clear that the further down the income ladder respondents were, the
more likely they were to find fees a barrier to visiting public lands. More specifically, the
research findings demonstrate that a significant proportion of lower income residents of
Whatcom County find access fees to be a deterrent to visiting public lands and that fees
have reduced their usage of public lands or have forced them into difficult economic
tradeoffs.
One of the most striking results of this research project is that while 45 percent of
lower-income respondents said paying a fee is economically difficult, not a single upper
income respondent answered the same way. Similarly revealing is that while half of the
lower-income respondents reported going to parks less often because of fees, only 18
percent of upper income respondents reported the same. Further, the regression analysis
conducted for most of the questions consistently found income to be the most important
variable relating to the impact of fees.
Fees and the Privatization of Public Lands
The findings presented here regarding public land access fees must be viewed
within the broader context of the creeping privatization of public lands. As discussed
earlier, public land agencies have adopted numerous market-based management practices
in recent years, including outsourcing of functions such as maintenance and
interpretation; promoting private sponsorship of projects; selling off holdings that do not
generate revenue; and shifting the entire budget of public land agencies from general tax
67
revenue to user fees. Although public ownership of parks and most outdoor recreational
areas remains the norm – indeed there has not been a wide sell-off of public lands – there
is clearly an erosion of the merit-goods nature of public lands.
These market-based changes, including access fees, are often promoted or
rationalized as a way to help public lands improve their bottom line and enhance service
to the public (Johnson 1991; Hanson 2005). Charging access fees, however, does not
appear to always generate new revenue to help land management agencies. There are
several reasons why the new fee money is not improving the fiscal bottom line for public
land agencies. First, it appears that, in some cases, fee revenue has replaced previously
appropriated dollars rather than create new resources. It is difficult to generalize this
conclusion to all fee programs throughout the country, but there are some important
findings that reinforce it. Congress slashed the U.S. Forest Service’s recreation budget
by more than a third between 1996 and 1999, for example, at the same time that the Fee
Demo program started (Michlen 2001). Similarly, the Deschutes National Forest in
Oregon generated $175,400 in user fees in 1998 and then had its budget for 1999 cut by
$175,800 (Michlen 2001). The most striking evidence of fee dollars replacing
appropriated dollars is found with state parks. In Kansas, the state legislature has moved
from fully supporting state parks to currently only paying for 20 percent of the park
agency’s operating budget with increased fees making up the shortfall (Sigman 2005).
Currently, Washington State Parks needs to raise 40 percent of its budget from fees,
whereas just a few years ago it received virtually all of its funding from the state’s
general fund (WSP 2005).
68
Finally, access fees do not always generate the predicted amount of revenue.
Agencies appear to have spent significant sums implementing the program, cutting into
the net financial gain from charging fees. A comprehensive 2003 General Accounting
Office (GAO) report of the U.S. Forest Service’s implementation of the Fee Demo
program, for example, shows that the agency had spent almost as much money on
enforcing and promoting access fees as they generated from the fees themselves (GAO
2003). Fees may also affect visitation levels, as seen in Washington State, where visits to
state parks have dropped since fees were implemented in 2002. As a result, projected
revenue generated by the fee program has been much less than expected (Freiderich
2005).
Thus, it appears that the greatest impact of fees has not been to dramatically
improve the financial standing of public lands, but rather to shift how society pays for
public lands. We are moving from paying for public lands via broad, progressive
taxation to user fees that exclude or deter significant segments of society. In some cases,
this shift has been incremental, such as with some state park systems and most federal
lands, which still receive significant general funding from Congress. But in other cases
the shift has been total, such as with Michigan State Parks, which now receives all of its
funding from user fees and where land managers must find ways to promote visitation or,
in essence, sell their product, in order to fund their budget (Wureful 2003; Stang 2005).
This new reality was clearly stated by Mike Hayden, the head of the Kansas Department
of Wildlife and Parks, when talking about the role that fees have played in that state’s
park system: "Every time we raise fees we cut some people out (Sigman 2005).”
69
A fair debate can be had between ideological opponents about the ethics and
efficacy of government services being privatized and government agencies adopting
business-like practices. Indeed, the evidence is somewhat inconclusive that fees do not
generate new, much needed revenue (GAO 1998; GAO 2003). What is undeniable,
however, is that access fees cause public lands to be treated more like private goods – a
fundamental change in the history of public land management. If proponents of user fees
suggest that there is much to be gained by this change in terms of market-based
efficiencies, greater responsiveness to “customer” needs, and perhaps even more funding
for land-management agencies, then it is equally important to determine what might be
lost by this shift. The research in this thesis clearly shows that what is at jeopardy is
something fundamental to parks and other outdoor areas: their public nature. At many
parks and other outdoor areas, the many benefits of public lands, so forcefully espoused
by Olmsted and others, are no longer available to all citizens, but rather only to those who
can pay entry fees.
Although some may argue that it seems difficult to believe that a $5 entry fee
would prevent someone from visiting a public land (Grewell 2004), this research clearly
shows that fees have a deterrent effect. The harsh economic reality facing some people
when they consider paying a fee was stated by one survey respondent: “Do I pay $5 for a
park or $5 towards the bill for my teeth?” When the nation’s relatively new public land
policy of charging fees forces such a tradeoff, then it is undeniable that public lands are
no longer as public, or democratic, as they once were.
70
Limitations of Research
There are several limitations to the research presented in this thesis that warrant
discussion. First, survey research is a somewhat imperfect tool for determining cause-
and-effect behavior. It certainly is the most common method for trying to understand
behaviors and attitudes, but it falls short of providing the clean research environment of a
controlled experiment. Thus, the research presented here is limited by the ability of
people to remember their behaviors and the factors that affected their behaviors. The
accuracy of responses depends on the respondents’ level of recall and their self-
knowledge regarding why they do what they do, i.e. do fees really cause them to reduce
their usage of public lands or does it just seem that way when thinking about it in
hindsight? Yet, survey research has a long history of effectively explaining attitudes and
behaviors and, while perhaps not as accurate as an actual experiment, still provides
informative results. As discussed in the Methods section, survey researchers have
developed a series of techniques to ensure accuracy and reliability, all of which were
employed in this research.
Next, there are several ways in which this specific survey project was limited and
some survey errors that proved difficult to avoid. Limits on time and money prevented
this project from having a larger sample size. A sample of 301 respondents is acceptable,
but a higher number of responses would have reduced the error rate. Additionally, the
respondents were significantly more likely to be women – not an unusual occurrence in
survey research – but more time and resources, and perhaps a different sampling method,
could have allowed for a greater gender balance. Given that the regression analysis
71
showed that gender did not play a significant role in how people respond to fees, this
deficiency does not appear to affect the overall findings.
If I were to conduct the survey again, I would also change some of the question
wording and spend more time on pre-testing questions. There are several questions or
statements that were worded negatively (“I don’t mind paying a fee”), that clearly
confused respondents when they were asked to agree or disagree with them and there
were many requests for clarifications on these questions. Thus, I have a low degree of
confidence in the questions that were worded in this fashion and did not include them in
the results analysis. The complete survey results can be found in Appendix A.
Finally, it would have been ideal to have a higher response rate. Forty-six percent
is somewhat below the rate (60 percent) normally expected in a telephone survey (Salant
and Dillman 1994), but it is higher than the rate in similar research regarding user fees
(More and Stevens 2000). The lower the response rate, the greater potential for error, but
it does not appear that the sample differed in any meaningful way from the population,
with the exception of gender.
Conclusions
There is an ongoing debate around public land access fees that is unlikely to
subside in the coming years. Reliance upon fees seems to be expanding: the National
Park Service recently announced increased entry fees at several nearby parks, with the
entry fee for Mt. Rainier and Olympic National Parks rising from $10 to $15 in 2006 (AP
2005). However, fees are also running into significant opposition, as shown by the new
proposal to eliminate fees at Washington State Parks (Freiderich 2005). Additionally, the
issue of fees discriminating against some socioeconomic groups has been raised by
72
government officials and citizens as a possible major drawback of access fees (More and
Stevens 2000; Nokkentved 2002; Mottram 2004).
Access fees represent a profound dilemma for those interested in public lands.
Fees may represent a new source of revenue for the upkeep of places that have suffered
from years of high use and insufficient funding. Yet, the evidence is mixed, at best,
whether fees actually provide additional funding. Regardless of the funding effects of
fees, this new policy alters the treatment of public lands as merit goods. Since the days
of Olmsted, public lands in the United States have been driven by an ideal of democratic
access. As the research presented here shows, fees clearly challenge the continuance of
that democratic notion. This study, along with several previous works, show that fees do
in fact cause people to use public lands less often, and that they are regressive. The effect
of fees on park visitation is exemplified by one survey respondent who stated: “I can
remember when we were dirt poor and all we could afford to do was go to parks. So I
wish that parks didn’t charge fees.” It is a new reality that, in Whatcom County at the
least, some people, likely lower-income people, will not go to public lands as often
because of access fees. This reality runs counter to the history of most public lands in the
United States and shows that the democratic nature of these special places has been
compromised.
73
VI. LITERATURE CITED
AP (2005). Fees are rising at state's national parks. Seattle Times. 10/13/2005. Bach, A. (2003). Cost of cooling down goes up: Some state park visitors surprised to
encounter day-use parking fee. Seattle Times. 7/29/03: B1. Beckwith, J. P. (1981). "Parks, property rights and the possibilities of the private law."
Cato Journal 1(2): 473-498. Bourque, L. and E. Fielder (2003). How to conduct telephone surveys. Thousand Oaks,
CA, Sage Publications. Burns, R., A. Graefe, et al. (2002). An examination of the Pacific Northwest Region
Recreation Fee program. Portland, OR, United States Forest Service. Cockrell, D. and J. D. Wellman (1985). "Democracy and leisure: Reflection on pay-as-
you-go outdoor recreation." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 3(4): 1-10.
Connelly, J. (2001). Middle class should be aware of who will be used in the park user-fee debate. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 3/9/01: A2.
Craig, L. (2005). Fees and our forest don't always fit. High Country News On-Line; http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.WOTRArticle?article_id=14894.
Cranz, G. (1982). The politics of park design: A history of urban parks in America. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
Doyle, M. (2005). National parks looking for ways to pay back donors. McClatchy Newspapers: http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=NATIONALPARKS-12-26-05&cat=WW.
Duncan, M. (1991). Back to our radical roots. Recreation and leisure: Issues in an era of change. T. L. Goodale and P. A. Witt. State College, PA, Venture Publishing, INC.
Dustin, D. (1986). "Outdoor recreation: A question of equity." Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy(Fall): 62-67.
Dustin, D. L. and R. C. Knopf (1988). General Technical Report SE-52: Equity issues in outdoor recreation. Outdoor Recreation Benchmark. A. Watson. Ashville, NC, United States Forest Service Southern Forest Experimental Station: 467-471.
Featherman, D. (2004). A telescope on society. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.
Fink, A. (2003). The survey handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. Floyd, M. (1999). "Race, ethnicity and use of the National Park System." Social Science
Research Review 1(2): 1-24.
74
Freiderich, S. (2005). Legislators target state park fees. The Daily World. Grays Harbor, WA. 10/28/05.
GAO (1998). Recreation fees: Demonstration fee program successful but could be improved (GAO / RCED-99-7). Washington, D.C., General Accounting Office.
GAO (2003). Recreation fees: Information on Forest Service management of fees from the Fee Demonstration Program (GAO-03-470). Washington, D.C., General Accounting Office.
Grewell, J. B. (2004). Recreation fees - Four philosophical questions. Bozeman, MT, The Property and Environment Research Center: June 2004.
Hanson, J. (2005). Securing the future of Washington's State Parks: Market-based user fees and privitization can solve budget surplus. Seattle, WA http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/ConOutPrivatization/PNParksMarketBasedFees01-2.html, Washington Policy Center.
Hardy, M. (1993). Regression with dummy variables. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications, Inc.
Harmon, D. and A. Putney (2003). The full value of parks: From economics to the intangible, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Hendee, J., G. Stankey, et al. (1990). Wilderness Management. Golden, CO, Fulcrum Publishing, North American Press.
Herrington, G. (2000). Would privatization help Washington's state parks? The Columbian. Vancouver, WA: B2.
Johnson, R. (1991). Pay to play: A rationale for user fees. American Forests.
Kenworthy, T. (2005). Budgets chop away at park funds. USA Today. 2/2/2005. Lee, J., D. Scott, et al. (2001). "Structural inequalities in outdoor recreation participation:
A multiple hierarchy perspective." Journal of Leisure Research 33(4): 427-449. Lieber, S., D. Fesenmaier, et al. (1989). "Recreation expenditures and opportunity theory:
The case of Illinois." Journal of Leisure Research 21(2): 106-123. Lindsay, J. and R. Ogle (1972). "Socioeconomic patterns of outdoor recreation use near
urban areas." Journal of Leisure Research 4(1): 19-24. McClure, R. (2005). Bill would open public land: Thousands of acres could be privatized.
Seattle Post Intelligencer. Michlen, J. (2001). Is this land our land? Washington Post. 6/24/2001.
Milstein, M. (2005). Mount St. Helens open to bids. The Oregonian. 10/18/2005. Portland.
More, T. (1999). "A functionalist approach to user fees." Journal of Leisure Research 31(3): 227-244.
More, T. (2002). "'The parks are being loved to death' and other frauds and deceits in recreation management." Journal of Leisure Research 34(1): 52-78.
75
More, T. and T. Stevens (2000). "Do user fees exclude low-income people from resource-based recreation?" Journal of Leisure Research 32(3): 341-357.
Mottram, B. (2004). Forest Fiasco? Tacoma News Tribune. 4/29/2004. Musgrave, R. A. (1959). The theory of public finance: A study in public economy. New
York, McGraw-Hill. Nardi, P. (2003). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods. Boston, Allyn
& Bacon. Nash, R. F. (2001). Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven, CT, Nota Bene.
Nokkentved, N. (2002). Effects of park fees examined. The Olympian. Olympia, WA. 3/4/02.
NPCA (2004). Final spending bill shortchanges parks. National Parks. 78: 15. NTIA (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. Washington, D.C.,
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Telecommunication and Information Administration. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html.
NWI (1995). State by state government land ownership. Washington, D.C., National Wilderness Institute.
P.L.-104-134 (1996). "U.S. Congress: Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134)."
P.L.-108-447 (2005). "U.S. Congress: Title VII - Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-447)."
Pampel, F. (2000). Logistic regression: a primer. Iowa City, Sage University Papers. Putkammer, A. (2001). Linking wilderness research and management -- volume 3.
Recreation fees in wilderness and other public lands: An annotated reading list. Fort Collins, CO, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-79-Vol 3: 29p.
Reiling, S. and R. McCarville (1994). Demand and marketing study at Army Corps of Engineers day-use areas (Miscellanous Paper R-94-1). Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Salant, P. and D. Dillman (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Schneider, I. and M. Budruk (1999). "Displacement as a response to the federal recreation fee program." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 17(3): 76-84.
Schroeder, H. and J. Louviere (1999). "Stated choice models for predicting the impact of user fees at public recreation sites." Journal of Leisure Research 31(3): 300-324.
Schultz, J., L. McAvoy, et al. (1988). "What are we in business for?" Parks and Recreation 23(1): 52-54.
Shute, N. (1995). This budget cut is destructive. High Country News. 10/29/95.
76
Sigman, B. (2005). Kansas parks at 100. Johnson County (Kansas) Sun. Stang, S. (2005). Michigan state parks need a rise in campers. WNDU-TV. South Bend,
IN 5/31/2005. Tocqueville, A. d. (2004). Democracy in America. New York, Library of America.
TPL (1998). Conservation Finance. San Francisco, Trust for Public Land. Trainor, S. and R. Norgaard (1999). "Recreation fees in the context of wilderness use."
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 17(3): 100-115. Turner, J. (2002). Commission approves parking fees at state parks. Tacoma News
Tribune. 9/13/02: A1. Turner, J. (2003). Fewer folks visit state parks: Fees shoo away day patrons. Tacoma
News Tribune. 12/9/03. U.S.-Census-Bureau (2000). Census 2000. Washington, D.C., United States Census
Bureau. U.S.Congress (1978). "United States Congress. 92 Stat. 163: An act to establish a
Redwood National Park in the state of California and for other purposes." USDA (2000). National survey on recreation and the environment. Washington, D.C.,
U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/Nsre/nsre2.html.
Wellman, J. and D. Probst (2004). Wildland recreation policy. Malabar, FL, Krieger Publishing Co.
White, C. (1992). "Legislative history of outdoor recreation fees." Recnotes R92(3): 1-5. Williams, D. R., C. A. Vogt, et al. (1999). "Structural equation modeling of users'
response to wilderness recreation fees." Journal of Leisure Research 31(3): 245-268.
Williams, P. and J. Black (2002). Issues and concerns related to the USDA's Recreation Fee Demonstration program. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Forest Service.
WSP (2005). Washington State Parks History; http://www.parks.wa.gov/history.asp. Olympia, WA.
WSP (2005). Washington State Parks press release: Commission extends discounted parking fee in state parks. 8/12/2005. Olympia, WA.
Wureful, B. (2003). Camping fees expected to increase. Michigan Department of Natural Resources press release. 3/7/2003. Lansing, MI.
77
VII. APPENDIX A
Complete survey with responses to each question
Introduction Hi, my name is (first and last name.) I’m calling from Western Washington University. We’re doing a survey about the opinion of Whatcom County residents towards parks and other outdoor areas in the county. The survey would only take about five to seven minutes and is completely confidential. Will you participate in this survey and help us learn about how people use parks in Whatcom County? Intro2 Great. Are you at least 18 years old and live at this residence? If YES then continue with survey, if NO the call back time was arranged to speak with an adult. Okay, then we’ll get started. You can refuse to answer any question or end the survey at any time. Q1. I am going to ask you a series of questions about parks and other outdoor areas in Whatcom County. Please tell me for each one whether you have visited this type of area since May of last year: Yes No Don’t
Know State parks, like Larrabee State Park or Birch Bay State Park
65.4% 34.6%
National parks, like North Cascades National Park
41.9% 56.1% 2.0%
National Forests, like Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest (not including the ski area)
69.0% 31.0%
County Parks, like Silver Lake Park or Chuckanut Mountain Park
67.7% 31.7% 0.7%
City parks, like Lake Padden Park or your local neighborhood park
72.7% 27.3%
Other Parks 50.0% 45.5% 4.5%
Q2. How many times since last May have you visited parks like all of those I just asked you about?
78
CALCULATE # OF TIMES Q3. I’m going to read you a list of activities that some people like to do at parks and other outdoor areas. Please tell me which of these you like to do Yes No Don’t
Know Hiking 74.8% 24.9% 0.3% Bicycling 41.9% 58.1% Hunting 15.3% 84.7% Overnight backpacking 34.6% 65.1% 0.3% Fishing 53.5% 46.5% Boating 60.5% 39.5% Running 28.2% 71.4% 0.3% Picnicking 86.7% 13.3% RV Camping 23.3% 76.7% Tent Camping 59.1% 40.9% Q4. Are there other activities you like to do at parks and other outdoor areas?
Qualitative responses captured but not listed here. Q5. Do you go to parks and other outdoor areas as often as you would like? Yes No Do you go to parks and other outdoor areas as often as you would like?
38.7% 61.3%
Q6. I’m going to read a list of reasons why you may not go to parks and other
outdoor areas as often as you’d like. For each one, please tell me if it is a major reason, minor reason, or not a reason at all for why you don’t go to parks and outdoor areas as much as you’d like.
(Question order rotated) Major
reason Minor reason
Not a reason
Don’t Know
You don't have enough time? 66.5% 19.2% 13.2% 1.1% You're in poor health? 15.8% 7.1% 76.5% .5% You have no way to get there? 4.9% 14.3% 80.8% You can't afford to go? 7.2% 19.3% 72.9% .6% You are too busy with other activities?
62.6% 21.4% 15.4% .5%
The park facilities are not in good shape?
1.6% 18.1% 78.6% 1.6%
The parks are too crowded? 5.5% 31.3% 62.1% 1.1%
79
Q7. Are there any other reasons you don't go to parks as often as you like?
Qualitative responses captured but not listed here. Q8. Now I am going to ask you a few questions about fees charged at parks and
other public outdoor areas. Some of these places, like Larrabee State Park and Mt. Baker National Forest, charge parking fees, usually around $5 a day or $50 for an annual pass.
Have you ever paid a parking fee, or bought a pass, for a park or other outdoor area in Whatcom County? (Not including the ski area)
Yes No Can't
Remember Have you ever paid a parking fee, or bought a pass, for a park or other outdoor area in Whatcom County?
60.4% 39.3% 0.3%
Q9. How does the requirement at some parks to pay a parking or entry fee affect how often you go to those places? Do you . . .
Go
more often
Go the same
Go less often
Doesn’t affect you because you don’t go to parks
Don’t Know
How does the requirement at some parks to pay a parking or entry fee affect how often you go to those places?
1.7% 56.2% 37.8% 2.3% 2.0%
80
Q10. I am going to read a few statements about fees and parks. For each one, please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the statement:
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t Know
Paying a fee is economically hard for me to do
12.5% 17.2% 8.8% 18.5% 42.1% 1.0%
I am opposed to paying fees at parks so I don't like to go to those parks that charge fees
19.3% 14.5% 8.8% 20.9% 34.1% 2.4%
I don't mind paying a fee
30.6% 28.3% 6.1% 13.1% 21.2% .7%
Fees don't affect how often I go to parks
35.2% 22.8% 5.7% 14.8% 20.5% 1.0%
Q11. Have you ever avoided paying fees by going to another park that doesn’t charge fees? Yes No Not Sure Have you ever avoided paying fees by going to another park that doesn't charge fees?
36.2% 63.4% 0.3%
Q12. Do you ever avoid paying fees by parking outside of the official parking lots and walking in? Yes No Do you ever avoid paying fees by parking outside of the official parking lots and walking in?
36.9% 63.1%
81
Q13. Do you think that going to parks and other public lands should be totally free, like going to a public library, or that it's okay to charge entry fees, like going to a movie theater? Should be totally free (like libraries)
Okay to charge entry fees (like movies)
Don’t Know
43.1% 48.8% 8.1%
Q14. Parks and other outdoor areas need money to operate and stay open to the public. Do you think that... Operating funds should come primarily through entry and parking fees
Operating funds should come primarily through
general taxes
Operating funds should come from a
mix of the two
Don’t Know
7.0% 32.9% 57.0% 3.0%
Q15. Okay, one last question about parks and fees. Since last May have you
avoided going to any parks or public lands because there was a parking fee?
Yes 23.5% No 75.8%
Not Sure 0.7% Okay, we’re almost done. I just have a few questions about your background so that we can compare your answers to those of other people. All of your questions will be kept strictly confidential and used only for the purposes of this survey. Q16. Do you live in or RIGHT NEXT TO Bellingham?
Yes 48.8%
No 50.9%
Don’t Know / Refused
0.3%
82
Q17. Please tell me what the yearly income is for your household. Is it . . .
Count Percent
Less than $10,000
13 4.4%
$10,000 to under $15,000
10 3.4%
$15,000 to under $25,000
37 12.4%
$25,000 to under $35,000
60 20.1%
$35,000 to under $50,000
66 22.1%
$50,000 to under $75,000
48 16.1%
$75,000 to under $100,000
23 7.7%
$100,000 to under $150,000
12 4.0%
$150,000 to under $200,000, or
4 1.3%
$200,000 or more
2 0.7%
DON'T KNOW/ REFUSED
23 7.7%
Q18. How many people in your household are supported by that income? CALCULATE Q19. Is your age . . .
Count Percent 18 - 19 years 10 3.4%
20 to 24 15 5.0% 25 to 34 61 20.5% 35 to 44 59 19.8% 45 to 54 60 20.1% 55 to 59 34 11.4% 60 to 64 20 6.7% 65 to 74 20 6.7% 75 to 84 14 4.7%
85 or older 2 0.7% REFUSED 3 1.0%
83
Q20. What is your race? Only categories for which there was a response are shown.
Count Percent White /
Caucasian 263 88.6%
Hispanic or Latino
6 2.0%
American Indian and Alaska
Native
8 2.7%
OTHER 15 5.1% REFUSED 5 1.7%
Q21. What level of school have you completed?
Count Percent
Elementary (1-6 years)
1 0.3%
Junior High or some high school (7-<12 years)
11 3.7%
High School Graduate 59 19.9%
Some college (13-16 years)
105 35.4%
College Graduate 80 26.9%
Advanced degree (>16 years)
40 13.5%
REFUSED 1 0.3%
Q22. I know this question may sound silly, but I have to ask it: are you male or female?
Count Percent Male 115 38.6%
Female 182 61.1%
Refused 1 0.3%
Okay, we're all done. Thank you very much for your participation in this project. Have a good night (day). TERMINATE.
84
VIII. APPENDIX B
Regression tables utilizing expanded demographic model for select questions
1. Paying a fee is economically hard for me to do. Linear regression (1= strongly agree . . . 5 = strongly disagree)
Coefficientsa
4.674 .480 9.731 .000-1.672 .258 -.554 -6.470 .000
-.785 .254 -.258 -3.095 .002-.876 .383 -.159 -2.289 .023.276 .255 .084 1.082 .280
-.012 .210 -.004 -.056 .956-1.203 .879 -.082 -1.368 .172
-.039 .266 -.008 -.147 .883
.348 .197 .101 1.764 .079
-.190 .183 -.062 -1.036 .301
-.113 .168 -.038 -.672 .502
-.100 .260 -.024 -.383 .702-.101 .209 -.029 -.480 .631-.139 .182 -.046 -.765 .445-.229 .204 -.074 -1.123 .262-.490 .187 -.165 -2.627 .009.213 .185 .070 1.151 .251.189 .201 .057 .940 .348.011 .252 .002 .042 .967.207 .200 .060 1.038 .300.179 .212 .059 .843 .400
(Constant)Income - Low DummyIncome - Middle DummyIncome - Missing DummyAge - Young DummyAge - Middle DummyAge - Missing DummyRace - White DummyEducation - CollegeDummyGender - Female DummyLocation - Bellingham(urban) dummyHunting DummyHiking DummyBike DummyBackpacking DummyFishing DummyBoating DummyRunningDummyPicnkicking DummyRV Camping DummyTent Camping Dummy
Model1
B Std. Error
UnstandardizedCoefficients
Beta
StandardizedCoefficients
t Sig.
Dependent Variable: Paying a fee is economically hard for me to doa.
85
2. I am opposed to paying fees at parks so I don’t like to go to parks that don’t charge fees. Linear regression (1= strongly agree . . . 5 = strongly disagree) .
Coefficientsa
3.306 .520 6.353 .000-.799 .280 -.251 -2.856 .005-.459 .273 -.144 -1.681 .094-.777 .412 -.135 -1.884 .061.625 .279 .182 2.242 .026.325 .228 .103 1.425 .155
-.557 .948 -.036 -.588 .557.397 .290 .081 1.371 .172
.781 .214 .216 3.644 .000
-.098 .198 -.031 -.492 .623
-.160 .182 -.052 -.881 .379
-.807 .279 -.187 -2.894 .004-.217 .227 -.061 -.958 .339-.073 .199 -.023 -.370 .712-.186 .223 -.057 -.832 .406-.298 .203 -.096 -1.472 .142.038 .201 .012 .188 .851
-.017 .220 -.005 -.076 .940-.078 .271 -.017 -.289 .772.489 .217 .134 2.250 .025
-.032 .231 -.010 -.139 .890
(Constant)Income - Low DummyIncome - Middle DummyIncome - Missing DummyAge - Young DummyAge - Middle DummyAge - Missing DummyRace - White DummyEducation - CollegeDummyGender - Female DummyLocation - Bellingham(urban) dummyHunting DummyHiking DummyBike DummyBackpacking DummyFishing DummyBoating DummyRunningDummyPicnkicking DummyRV Camping DummyTent Camping Dummy
Model1
B Std. Error
UnstandardizedCoefficients
Beta
StandardizedCoefficients
t Sig.
Dependent Variable: I am opposed to paying fees at parks so I don't like to go to those parksthat charge fees
a.
86
3. How does the requirement at some parks to pay a parking or entry fee affect how often you go to those places? Logistic regression (0 = go the same / more often; 1 = go less often)
Variables in the Equation
1.297 .465 7.764 1 .005 3.658.785 .464 2.856 1 .091 2.192
1.310 .601 4.760 1 .029 3.708-.160 .401 .158 1 .691 .852-.120 .338 .127 1 .721 .887-.512 1.056 .235 1 .628 .599-.514 .407 1.600 1 .206 .598-.364 .306 1.417 1 .234 .695.489 .297 2.706 1 .100 1.631.130 .266 .238 1 .626 1.138.404 .402 1.011 1 .315 1.498.467 .339 1.898 1 .168 1.595.291 .293 .987 1 .320 1.338
-.385 .324 1.417 1 .234 .680.407 .299 1.848 1 .174 1.502
-.488 .291 2.821 1 .093 .614.038 .318 .015 1 .904 1.039.271 .407 .441 1 .507 1.311
-.360 .323 1.237 1 .266 .698.387 .341 1.292 1 .256 1.473
-1.737 .772 5.056 1 .025 .176
IncLowDummyIncMidDummyIncMissDummyAgeYoungDummyAgeMiddleDummyAgeMissingDummyRaceWhiteDummyEducCollegeDummyGendFemaleDummyLocBhamDummyHuntingDummyHikingDummyBicyclingDummyBPDummyFisjhDummyBoatDummyRunDummyPicnickDummyRVDummyTentDummyConstant
Step1
a
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Variable(s) entered on step 1: IncLowDummy, IncMidDummy, IncMissDummy, AgeYoungDummy,AgeMiddleDummy, AgeMissingDummy, RaceWhiteDummy, EducCollegeDummy,GendFemaleDummy, LocBhamDummy, HuntingDummy, HikingDummy, BicyclingDummy,BPDummy, FisjhDummy, BoatDummy, RunDummy, PicnickDummy, RVDummy, TentDummy.
a.
87
4. Have you ever avoided fees by going to another park that doesn’t charge fees? Logistic regression (0 = no; 1=yes).
Variables in the Equation
1.731 .495 12.237 1 .000 5.6481.013 .488 4.308 1 .038 2.7541.644 .637 6.665 1 .010 5.177-.022 .409 .003 1 .958 .978.083 .351 .055 1 .814 1.086.466 1.074 .189 1 .664 1.594.167 .429 .152 1 .697 1.182.030 .314 .009 1 .923 1.031
-.318 .300 1.126 1 .289 .727.685 .278 6.085 1 .014 1.984.052 .413 .016 1 .899 1.054.355 .356 .994 1 .319 1.426.438 .296 2.179 1 .140 1.549.222 .329 .455 1 .500 1.248.933 .316 8.725 1 .003 2.542
-.144 .299 .231 1 .631 .866.133 .323 .170 1 .680 1.142.132 .407 .104 1 .747 1.141
-.607 .343 3.138 1 .077 .545-.120 .354 .115 1 .734 .887
-3.117 .826 14.247 1 .000 .044
IncLowDummyIncMidDummyIncMissDummyAgeYoungDummyAgeMiddleDummyAgeMissingDummyRaceWhiteDummyEducCollegeDummyGendFemaleDummyLocBhamDummyHuntingDummyHikingDummyBicyclingDummyBPDummyFisjhDummyBoatDummyRunDummyPicnickDummyRVDummyTentDummyConstant
Step1
a
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Variable(s) entered on step 1: IncLowDummy, IncMidDummy, IncMissDummy, AgeYoungDummy,AgeMiddleDummy, AgeMissingDummy, RaceWhiteDummy, EducCollegeDummy,GendFemaleDummy, LocBhamDummy, HuntingDummy, HikingDummy, BicyclingDummy,BPDummy, FisjhDummy, BoatDummy, RunDummy, PicnickDummy, RVDummy, TentDummy.
a.
88
5. Do you ever avoid paying fees by parking outside of the official parking lots and walking in? Logistic regression (0=no; 1=yes).
Variables in the Equation
.344 .443 .602 1 .438 1.411
.707 .438 2.610 1 .106 2.028-.544 .718 .575 1 .448 .580.468 .424 1.218 1 .270 1.596
-.029 .370 .006 1 .937 .971-20.682 15054.24 .000 1 .999 .000
-.356 .430 .687 1 .407 .700-.506 .335 2.282 1 .131 .603.003 .312 .000 1 .991 1.003
-.129 .288 .201 1 .654 .879-.512 .446 1.318 1 .251 .599.986 .404 5.951 1 .015 2.682.487 .300 2.641 1 .104 1.627.389 .327 1.417 1 .234 1.476
-.399 .312 1.631 1 .202 .671.122 .313 .152 1 .697 1.129.623 .319 3.808 1 .051 1.865
-.067 .435 .024 1 .877 .935-.324 .347 .874 1 .350 .723.634 .360 3.097 1 .078 1.885
-1.678 .827 4.119 1 .042 .187
IncLowDummyIncMidDummyIncMissDummyAgeYoungDummyAgeMiddleDummyAgeMissingDummyRaceWhiteDummyEducCollegeDummyGendFemaleDummyLocBhamDummyHuntingDummyHikingDummyBicyclingDummyBPDummyFisjhDummyBoatDummyRunDummyPicnickDummyRVDummyTentDummyConstant
Step1
a
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Variable(s) entered on step 1: IncLowDummy, IncMidDummy, IncMissDummy, AgeYoungDummy,AgeMiddleDummy, AgeMissingDummy, RaceWhiteDummy, EducCollegeDummy,GendFemaleDummy, LocBhamDummy, HuntingDummy, HikingDummy, BicyclingDummy,BPDummy, FisjhDummy, BoatDummy, RunDummy, PicnickDummy, RVDummy, TentDummy.
a.
Recommended